Sling Yer Muck!

[ringway]

What a Top Guy. The sign on the gate....



news




Giant 'chicken droppings catapult' set up by businessman to protect premises from arsonists

Last updated at 13:24 05 March 2008

• Comments (5)
• Add to My Stories

Every night Joe Weston-Webb loads chicken droppings into a 30ft catapult and primes a cannon that used to fire his wife with a railway sleeper, all in the name of security.
The ex-showman wheeled out old props in a desperate bid to protect his business from arsonists.
Conventional security measures around his portable flooring empire, such as fencing, motion-sensor lights and CCTV, had failed to keep the criminals out.
Scroll down for more ...

Ex-showman Joe Weston-Webb primes his 30ft Roman catapult with chicken dropping to protect his business from criminals

Mr Weston-Webb, 70, has rigged up Britain's biggest anti-burglar device after being targeted by vandalism, break-ins and even an arson attack.
But police have told him he will be prosecuted if he unleashes the wrath of the 30ft-tall Roman catapult - filled with chicken poo collected from a nearby farm - on any yobs he catches on his property.
The businessman has even put up a sign outside his property reading: "WARNING. These premises are protected by Smart Poo and railway sleeper projectiles."
Mr Weston-Webb vowed to ignore the warning - and said his battle highlighted the plight of worried home-owners across the country.
Scroll down for more ...

Mr Weston-Webb has put a sign up outside his portable flooring business to warn would-be crooks about the bizarre security measures

He said: "The police seem to be hoping I'm just having a bit of a laugh at their expense, but they're the ones who have lost all sense of reality.
"This is a serious issue. People all over Britain are sick and tired of feeling like prisoners in their own homes and seeing yobs get away with it.
"It's absolutely typical of this country that the person whose life has been made a complete misery is the one most likely to end up in court.
"Maybe the police think I'm joking, but the only people laughing are the criminals. That's why I fully intend to take the law into my own hands."
Last month Mr Weston-Webb's offices near Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire, were hit by a late-night arson attack as he slept in his nearby home.
And just an hour earlier four cars had their tyres slashed and windows smashed at his daughter's house a dozen miles away in Sileby, Leicestershire.
Scroll down for more ...

Defiant: Mr Weston-Webb has vowed he will use the catapult despite police warning him not to

Mr Weston-Webb, who runs a flooring company, kept the catapult - a Roman-style boulder-thrower - from his days as a travelling showman.
He is also considering using a 20ft-long cannon - formerly used to fire his wife across the River Avon - loaded with railway sleepers tipped with rubber.
He said: "That's the only concession I'm willing to make to all the do-gooders who seem to think criminals should be able to do what they want.
"I'm not out to kill anyone or even hurt them - I just want to keep yobs off my land. So I'm prepared to make my missiles a bit softer - but that's it."
Mr Weston-Webb believes a jealous rival may be behind the attacks after he won a deal to supply the floor for Strictly Come Dancing's touring show.
The businessman, who is now setting up a website urging other home-owners to protect their property, said he had won huge public support.
He added: "I've had hundreds of calls from people backing me. In fact, the only people who seem to be against what I'm doing are the police.
"Everything in this country is stacked against decent, law-abiding citizens.
"The bottom line is that you either make a stand or live in misery."
Nottinghamshire police said an expert would be visiting Mr Weston-Webb and his wife Mary to advise them of "conventional" anti-burglar measures.
Insp Jeff Haywood said: "A crime-prevention officer will be making contact with the complainant to offer some practical security advice.
"The officer will give tips on conventional security techniques, such as alarms, lighting and locks, and also on the use of reasonable force."
He added: "The law allows home-owners to protect themselves and their property with reasonable force if they are under threat from an intruder.
"However, the reasonable force must be proportionate to the threat. The setting up of booby traps is something that we would advise against."

Print this article

Read later

Email to a friend

Share this article:

 

[G.O'Rilla]

Could not possibly condone slinging chicken poo at a bunch of yobs... could we??

 

[glojo]

The way I understand things is that a booby trap by definition is hidden, or concealed. There is no way that monstrosity could ever be concealed, or hidden. The villians have been told what to expect but...

I constantly read about the public suing local authorities for just about anything andeverything.

The latest being next of kin trying to sue because no life guards were in attendance at a beach when someone drowned..... In the middle of winter, so burglars suing householders is par for the course.

Oh and don't dare suggest that burglars should be jailed, especially if they are unwell

 

[ringway]

I'd let the yobs in.. Then send 'em out loaded into the catapult.

Destinations would include The River Avon and the nearest motorway.....

 

[st4]

Oh and don't dare suggest that burglars should be jailed, especially if they are unwell

Oh good heavens no, its those that are burgled that should go to prison if they try and hinder the progress of a fleeing burglar. . Hell, if they injure or kill the fleeing burglar they should get a lengthy stretch

 

[glojo]

Oh good heavens no, its those that are burgled that should go to prison if they try and hinder the progress of a fleeing burglar. . Hell, if they injure or kill the fleeing burglar they should get a lengthy stretch

I guess you are referring to a very contraversial example and I fully support the decision of the jury regarding the guilty verdict

What this person is suggesting is in my eyes completely different to the veilled example

 

[st4]

I guess you are referring to a very contraversial example and I fully support the decision of the jury regarding the guilty verdict

I don't but agree to disagree.

What this person is suggesting is in my eyes completely different to the veilled example

Yes, its not like your going into this persons property unaware of what may happen to you However what business do people have entering others property without permission. Reap and sow....

However I think the OPs post was more getting at the point that burglars, intruders, vandals etc get a lesser punishment and less greif from the boys in blue than those who defend themselves against them

 

[crockers]

Oh good heavens no, its those that are burgled that should go to prison if they try and hinder the progress of a fleeing burglar. . Hell, if they injure or kill the fleeing burglar they should get a lengthy stretch

I don't see shooting someone in the back as they flee as self defense - also a punishment far exceeding the crime - but I daresay I am in the minority.

 

[st4]

I don't see shooting someone in the back as they flee as self defense - also a punishment far exceeding the crime - but I daresay I am in the minority.

I see it as perfectly justifiable behaviour and actually commendable. The man stood up for himself and what he owned. I even suspect he mouthed off that this is what he'd do, its not like they went into it unaware. Afterall, if someone is going to have a shotgun, its going to be a farmer. Darwinian theory in action.

I suspect I'll be shot down in flames but these yobs hounded this frail man, the law enforcement did nothing to help Mr Martin. We here of their rights, but what of his, what about his right to live in peace? Its only a shame he didn't manage to shoot the other one.

Back to this thread, I wholly back and commend the actions of this man, and would hope that if it were me, I'd have the backbone and strength of character to do the same.

 

[G.O'Rilla]

"Human rights" never seem to consider the rights of those aggrieved - to live their lives peacefully. Only those who make a noise about it.

I did laugh a few years ago when some of our travelling friends invaded a field and when they refused to leave, the farmer got the slurry wagon out and did a bit of muckspreading, all over their precious hobby caravans. Shame the police wanted to prosecute him, but the travelling friends quickly went elsewhere to disturb someone else's tranquility....

He shouldn't have had to do it in the first place, though.

 

[glojo]

I see it as perfectly justifiable behaviour and actually commendable. The man stood up for himself and what he owned. I even suspect he mouthed off that this is what he'd do, its not like they went into it unaware. Afterall, if someone is going to have a shotgun, its going to be a farmer. Darwinian theory in action.

I suspect I'll be shot down in flames but these yobs hounded this frail man, the law enforcement did nothing to help Mr Martin. We here of their rights, but what of his, what about his right to live in peace? Its only a shame he didn't manage to shoot the other one.

Back to this thread, I wholly back and commend the actions of this man, and would hope that if it were me, I'd have the backbone and strength of character to do the same.

I have personal experience of several burglars being 'detained' by the victim and I have NEVER experienced a single example of the householder being treated as the villan. How many times have I suggested we are manipulated by the media?

To shoot an unarmed person in the back whilst they are running away is not self defence, it never has and never will be.

If the police were to do that then guess who would be going hysterical and screaming 'Murder'

If that farmer was in his kitchen cleaning his lawfully held firearm and a burglar came at him with any type of weapon, then three cheers for the farmer.

If the farmer wascleaning his pitchfork and a burglar attacked him and that burglar was fended off with the pitchfork.... Then good on the farmer, but to shoot an unarmed person that was running away is unlawful and plain wrong.

The police might have arrested him, the CPS might have decided to prosecute, but it was a jury that heard the evidence and it was a jury that convicted that person. We can all expressour disgust at the police for arresting this person.... (was he arrested at the time of the incident?)

We can all blame the CPS for prosecuting this person, but

In my experience getting a jury to convict; especially in such contraversial circumstances, really speaks volumes about how silly that farmer was and most folks tend to ignore that very relevant fact.

I have experience of a burglar breaking into someone's house, laying out a wedding dress on the householders bed and then doing a poo on this dress!!! The burglar was caught and the householder assisted the police to get this person into a waiting police vehicle. No headlines, no hystrionics, no public outrage.

 

[crockers]

I see it as perfectly justifiable behaviour and actually commendable. The man stood up for himself and what he owned. I even suspect he mouthed off that this is what he'd do, its not like they went into it unaware. Afterall, if someone is going to have a shotgun, its going to be a farmer. Darwinian theory in action.

I suspect I'll be shot down in flames but these yobs hounded this frail man, the law enforcement did nothing to help Mr Martin. We here of their rights, but what of his, what about his right to live in peace? Its only a shame he didn't manage to shoot the other one.

Back to this thread, I wholly back and commend the actions of this man, and would hope that if it were me, I'd have the backbone and strength of character to do the same.

Then we will just have to agree to disagree....also it doesn't take any backbone to shoot someone running away ...more an act of revenge or cowardice.

 

[glojo]

Shame the police wanted to prosecute him, but the travelling friends quickly went elsewhere to disturb someone else's tranquility....

He shouldn't have had to do it in the first place, though.

Never let the truth spoil a good story.

If this event happened in this country then the police do not prosecute anyone. It is the Crown Prosecution Service.

The police would either stop the farmer??

Or arrest him if there was a case to be answered.

I do feel that in today's modern age that the police are far,far too concerned with the rights of the villain, but we cannot have it both ways. We spend hours trying to lynch the police for trying to stop thugs from bringing a city to a grinding halt and then in the next breath we complain that the police are stopping someone from spraying manure onto young children (You can bet there would be young children involved)

I would say good luck to the farmer and if he wanted to spray his fields with his farm's manure, then he should be allowed to do it and any vehicles unlawfully parked on his property should be removed. That applies to all these travellers that force their way onto private property, but it also applies to any unlawful demonstrators, or those that want to obstruct the highway, the law is the law

 

[st4]

I have personal experience of several burglars being 'detained' by the victim and I have NEVER experienced a single example of the householder being treated as the villan. How many times have I suggested we are manipulated by the media?

To shoot an unarmed person in the back whilst they are running away is not self defence, it never has and never will be.

If the police were to do that then guess who would be going hysterical and screaming 'Murder'

If that farmer was in his kitchen cleaning his lawfully held firearm and a burglar came at him with any type of weapon, then three cheers for the farmer.

If the farmer wascleaning his pitchfork and a burglar attacked him and that burglar was fended off with the pitchfork.... Then good on the farmer, but to shoot an unarmed person that was running away is unlawful and plain wrong.

The police might have arrested him, the CPS might have decided to prosecute, but it was a jury that heard the evidence and it was a jury that convicted that person. We can all expressour disgust at the police for arresting this person.... (was he arrested at the time of the incident?)

We can all blame the CPS for prosecuting this person, but

In my experience getting a jury to convict; especially in such contraversial circumstances, really speaks volumes about how silly that farmer was and most folks tend to ignore that very relevant fact.

I have experience of a burglar breaking into someone's house, laying out a wedding dress on the householders bed and then doing a poo on this dress!!! The burglar was caught and the householder assisted the police to get this person into a waiting police vehicle. No headlines, no hystrionics, no public outrage.

All well and good John but you've succeeded, like all the Tony Martin vilifiers, to completely ignore the white elephant in the room. What were these folk doing in that mans house in the small hours of the morning? What would they have done had they come accross Mr Martin downstairs, what was their business there? None of these are pleasant answers....

You seem to speak out about injustices done by juries and I recall a recent post of yours where you tried to illustrate the benefits of trail with just a judge and no jury. Sometimes I think you are right. Entrust the public with something like this and they'd mess it up as per usual....(last 3 general elections being a case and point)

The public were made out to hear of this silly deranged old man who lived alone in a farm, and these were harmless youngsters just having fun. Yes, the press mislead us don't they....

He shot them in the back, so what. He broke into this mans home, he made threats on several ocassions. And your choice of word "flee". More like running off after having his fun. The word flee to me imparts the yob was in the right, and I doubt you can prove that a house breaker is ever that

I prefer the tale of the south african police where there was an intruder shot dead, but only one bullet. They said you really need to fire a warning shot to show it was self defence and "it didn't really matter if it came before or after the bullet that killed the intruder but so long as it was there for paperwork". They left and came back and they had the bullet for the paperwork

To balance the act I am all for the police using wepons, I particularly enjoy the tale of the florida police who shot someone who shot at them 90 odd times. When they were asked why the crim was shot 90odd times, the answer "we ran out of bullets" was give.

I know your comment re Mr Mendez is also a highly emotive case, but at the end of the day it was an honest mistake. I can forgive the officer that, they do unfortunately happen. So I am not all entirely anti police etc as you'd make me out to be. But Mr Martin IMHO does not belong in prison.

 

[glojo]

I suspect I'll be shot down in flames but these yobs hounded this frail man, the law enforcement did nothing to help Mr Martin. We here of their rights, but what of his, what about his right to live in peace? .

Apologies for deleting some of your comments but I feel the remarks I have left are 100% correct.

This farmer was quite elderly,he clearly had medical issues and as far as I am concerned he was let down badly by the police and perhaps others but I guess that is the problem nationwide. Unless we live in a large city,we do not get the police cover we deserve.

It was a stone bonkers certainty that Mr Martin's farm wasgoing to be raided. He knew it, the police knew it and I feel he was let down.....

The police need to look long and hard at their conduct regarding that incident, BUT.... that is NO excuse for shooting a fleeing person.

 

[camerafodder]

, BUT.... that is NO excuse for shooting a fleeing person.

If he'd fled successfully, who's house would have been next?....or perhaps worse....

 

[st4]

Apologies for deleting some of your comments but I feel the remarks I have left are 100% correct.

This farmer was quite elderly,he clearly had medical issues and as far as I am concerned he was let down badly by the police and perhaps others but I guess that is the problem nationwide. Unless we live in a large city,we do not get the police cover we deserve.

It was a stone bonkers certainty that Mr Martin's farm wasgoing to be raided. He knew it, the police knew it and I feel he was let down.....

I agree with all this BTW

The police need to look long and hard at their conduct regarding that incident, BUT.... that is NO excuse for shooting a fleeing person.

Again the word fleeing. To me that word imparts that he was getting away from an adverse situation. He was, but remember he put himself in it. I usually use the word flee when I think of those leaving countries with awful political regimes, those who run away from abusive partners, those who escape from prisoner of war camps, not a cowardly yob intimidating a frail old man.

Prison has 3 purposes:

1. To protect the public from menaces. The people in prison for this purpose should never be released again.

2. The rehabilitate, I have my doubts about this given the amount of re-offenders out there.

3. To punish and to deter others - The Mr Biggs case may be an example of this. Mr Martin falls into this category too. He is hardly a threat to the public and whilst some may deem what he did as excessive, others don't. Certainly if I were on the jury I'd return a not guilty verdict. Quite how it got to trial defeats me but never mind . I still think its a massive injustice and a shameful failing of the British justice system, but you probably knew I'd say that already .

 

[st4]

Then we will just have to agree to disagree....also it doesn't take any backbone to shoot someone running away ...more an act of revenge or cowardice.

It takes more than doing nothing at all

 

[lynall]

Well he lives on a farm with lots of land to dig a few person sized holes, im sure they wouldnt be missed

I also dont think its mindless vandals if they know where his daughter lives 12 miles away

Dont forget there is ALWAYS two sides to every story


Lynall

 

[Baron_Samedi]

+1, lynall