Ron Gray Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 It's a brilliant idea Paul, simple but effective 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leccyflyer Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 7 hours ago, Cuban8 said: This is just the sort of idea that I was fishing for. Something that gets away from the usual chains and padlocks etc. Such a method as described needs a suitable building or container to be effective but given a bit of ingenuity could be altered to work in most situations. I guess the only hope is to slow down access to the 'goodies' and hope thieves move on to somewhere easier and at less risk of them being disturbed. Tracking devices are fine but a bit too late after the event - what about remote alarm systems - how do farmers secure their property that's spread over a wide area of their property? One of the farm contractors round these parts deploys these security robots when leaving their very expensive farm machinery on site at harvest time. Usually at least three of them deployed around the vehicles, which are temporarily on site in a gated compound during the harvest and I understand that they are linked to a central control unit, contain CCTV and security alarms and will give a loud warning of any intruders. https://www.vp-ess.com/products/communications/security/cctv-systems/pid-armadillo-videoguard-360/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 Don’t know, my club doesn’t own machinery, council does it. But a have knowledge of pond life. I would suggest, get a stencil, small, “ this belongs to Anywhere model aircraft club” and spray the machinery a hundred times or so, all round, under, in. These slugs need a quiet life. Too much trouble. Be careful about high voltages, s3, CJA Act 1967 applies, Use of Reasonable Force. Local plod might be reasonable and advise. Someone dead or in intensive care and the rules apply, applied by the A team. They might not like it, but that’s what they do 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 Post removed containing swearing, any further ones will provoke same response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 (edited) On 25/05/2024 at 21:04, Don Fry said: Don’t know, my club doesn’t own machinery, council does it. But a have knowledge of pond life. I would suggest, get a stencil, small, “ this belongs to Anywhere model aircraft club” and spray the machinery a hundred times or so, all round, under, in. These slugs need a quiet life. Too much trouble. Be careful about high voltages, s3, CJA Act 1967 applies, Use of Reasonable Force. Local plod might be reasonable and advise. Someone dead or in intensive care and the rules apply, applied by the A team. They might not like it, but that’s what they do I guess the stencil idea is the best compromise coupled with any idea that slows down the thieve's progress - several motorbike style ground anchors and maybe a VERY loud horn or Klaxon suitably secured within the building housing the valuables and installed in a way that it resists attack to silence it. I clearly remember working in a small electrical distribution room when an alarm sounded for some unknown reason and it was very, very painful on the ears - impossible to remain. Needs a of bit ingenuity to achieve but worth considering. Just hope the bad guys don't then torch things out of frustration/revenge. Edited May 28 by Cuban8 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Carlton Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) What about marking everything up with a DNA trace and slapping stencils all over? I'm not sure how much of a deterrent to a particularly keen thief it would be as they're normally stealing to order, but perhaps enough to deter an opportunist. Select DNA An alternative, I suppose, would be some very bright lights and sirens which would go off if the doors were forced. Klaxon Master! I have a friend who has a car garage and he has installed some smoke systems, which fill the space with thick smoke. Coupled with a strobe and a siren, I can imagine it's quite effective at stopping people wanting to hang around. Providing you put up a notice warning thieves of the potential hazard of course. That puts the risk firmly on their shoulders should they choose to go ahead. Edited May 28 by Matt Carlton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 The mental thing is that should an apprehended thief claim that they'd been injured in the course of a burglary it's possible that they could bring an action for damages against the person suffering the loss. Thieves have been beaten up, stabbed and shot during their dodgy doings and the sky has fallen in on the person trying to protect themselves or property. Very much a matter of proportionality no matter what we think should be done to those caught doing wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 12 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said: I think the alarm approach to field thefts is not so much as a warning to others that a theft is taking place , but making the environment around the valuable item virtually impossible to remain in whilst trying to bust locks and chains etc and encourage them to go elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Post removed again, disguised swearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 We got a bill for £2500, because someone cut entrance to our field and dumped a 10 skip load of asbestos waste, thankfully we had help paying the bill. Not a pleasant experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Gray Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 hour ago, Matt Carlton said: Providing you put up a notice warning thieves of the potential hazard of course. That puts the risk firmly on their shoulders should they choose to go ahead. I'm afraid that it doesn't! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul De Tourtoulon Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 2 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said: Post removed again, disguised swearing. Opps sorry "again", is that the ******* ? Can't you just blank the offending bits out ?. Edited May 28 by Paul De Tourtoulon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 6 hours ago, Cuban8 said: I guess the stencil idea is the best compromise coupled with any idea that slows down the thieve's progress - several motorbike style ground anchors and maybe a VERY loud horn or Klaxon suitably secured within the building housing the valuables and installed in a way that it resists attack to silence it. I clearly remember working in a small electrical distribution room when an alarm sounded for some unknown reason and it was very, very painful on the ears - impossible to remain. Needs a of bit ingenuity to achieve but worth considering. Just hope the bad guys don't then torch things out of frustration/revenge. My elder brother (19 years older) was 1. A paratrooper in the Malaya. 2. A greengrocer. He had a storeroom. He installed, a number, as in about eight, 24 volt lorry klaxons. Installed near the door, facing the contents, an accident of design. When he arrived the slug what broke in was still sheltering from the noise in the far corner. He then attacked bro with some wood. Error of judgement. Bottom line, lazy slugs, move them on to an easier target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Paul. It's all explained in the forum code of conduct. It's very clearly stated that the use of wild card characters to disguise bad language is unacceptable. Just pick an acceptable alternative and use that instead! https://www.modelflying.co.uk/code-conduct/ If anything is still unclear, please PM me so that this thread can return to the subject of site security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Carlton Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 7 hours ago, Ron Gray said: I'm afraid that it doesn't! In a legal sense, you are possibly correct. I'm not a lawyer so I'm happy to be corrected. However, isn't it the same ballpark as "bull in field", "beware of the dog" or "caution, fragile roof" ? If I drive down a road clearly marked "unsuitable for motors" and damage my car, who is liable? Ergo, a sign saying "site protected by klaxon, may cause discomfort" then who is liable? The principle being not to cause harm but to make the place uncomfortable to stay in long enough to go through with the robbery. But, a legal expert, I am definitely not. So, by all means elucidate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyGnome Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 From what's been in the media over the years, it depends on a judge's interpretation of reasonable. There's probably a fine line between causing discomfort by sound, and damaging someone's hearing...... I'd suggest 'bull in field', fragile roof', and 'beware of the dog', are purely informative with no deliberate action to hurt, or cause discomfort if the sign is ignored. Similarly, if a road is unsuitable for vehicles because it's narrow and not maintained, that's different to one that someone has booby-trapped with tyre shredding devices.... I'm not a lawyer either, but I can see a difference in intended, and unintended, consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engine Doctor Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 Re the law protecting the scum that steal or beak the rules of decency. A motor trader on YouTube had his courtesy car written off and the customer using it seriously injured by a uninsured hit an run driver. They were caught and subsequently sued the motor trader for damages . The Trader will lose the car his NCB and cost if this slug wins and the slug of a solictor reping him will of course make a mint probably out of our tax system. Our law system is wrong and too much in favour of the wrong doers . It needs a serious overhaul to protect the law abiding people and hang the scum out to dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted May 29 Author Share Posted May 29 (edited) I wouldn't have thought the loud alarm idea would land anyone trying to protect their property in bother, providing the sole intention of installing such a system wasn't to cause injury, or it could be argued that the sound being generated was far in excess of its intended purpose i.e to discourage a person from remaining in the area and have them quickly move away. I recall ultrasonic devices being trialled in town centre anti social hotspots to discourage rowdy youths from congregating some years back. It's not as though a hand grenade with the pin wired to a door was being used or a Vietcong bamboo pit was installed. If a thief continues with a robbery and despite the noise, winds up with hearing damage caused by the cumulative effects of several minutes of loud noise rather than doing what any other reasonable (that word again) person, thief, or otherwise would do and simply and easily remove themselves from the area - then more fool them - their choice. I guess lawyers might see it otherwise and twist it around to suit their case. Edited May 29 by Cuban8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Dance 1 Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 The mention of the use of ultrasonic devices being ised to deter rowdy youths in a town centre brought to mind the solution adopted by a CO-OP store near me faced with a similar rowdy youths problem came up with the soluttion of playing classical music on speakers placed on the store. Worked a treat apparently. It just wasn't cool to be seen outside the store apparently listening to classical music! I suggest the 1812 overture possibly with real cannon effects might act as a deterent. If the criminal tried to sue for hearing damage it would be interesting to see how his lawyer tried to make him the injured party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyGnome Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 11 hours ago, Cuban8 said: I guess lawyers might see it otherwise and twist it around to suit their case. Yes, that's their job 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.