To find floral tributes being left for Harry Vincent offensive

[frankchickens]

This is an attempt to intimidate the innocent family. Flowers should be removed - isn’t it littering?

I agree with you about the tributes, and I'm glad they have been taken down.

I'm torn on the wider issue though. On the one hand, I do think people have the right to defend themselves in their home.

On the other, I know someone who has done this and been cleared, and he is not the victim or the nice person he paints himself as. I've had personal experience of his temper and aggression for different reasons, and am still living with the results.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but most of us only know whats been reported in the news, we don't know the families personally and based on my experience with the other man, I feel torn and reluctant to commit one way or the other, even though based on what I've heard I feel for this homeowner.

But I do feel that regardless, the flowers should not be allowed to remain if they are replaced.

It's not actually clear whomremoved the flowers. They were taken down from the fence (did they have owner's permission to place them on private property?) and the pix on the BBC suggest they remain opposite the property in the pavement.

Many roadside tributes are permitted and remain for lengthy periods. But not if they generate complaints, and not on private property without consent. Perhaps a difference with Lee Rigby tributes is the absence of local complaints?

Oh you're a GF aren't you Repeal

They should have made their shrine outside Harry Vincent's own house, not where his offence was committed.

A vigilante took them down and filmed himself doing so, according to the press.

Neighbours are also quoted as saying they find it an act of deliberate intimidation.

The police said that "there was nothing they could do" about the shrine, an attitude I find regrettable. However, some people have moved the flowers to a local graveyard. The woman with dementia must be even more confused, not allowed to return to her own home. Dreadful.

In Ireland in a similar case sympathies were overwhelmingly with the home-owner. It prompted a change in laws concerning a person's right to defend their home.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_John_Ward

Yes, one of the perpetrators of the crime. Fortunately both victims survived.

The real victim? Only one of them are dead.

The real victim is the man who was reduced to believing the only option left to defend his home and wife against an armed intruder was to stab him. The scumbag who violated his home was described as being a career criminal who deliberately targeted vulnerable people. Worked out really well for him that night

It's normal to put flowers out when someone dies.

Waste of nice flowers, in this case.

Oh you're a GF aren't you Repeal

No. I'm making the point that the flowers are about the family. Are they not entitled to grieve because the dead person was not a good man?

Those tributes were intimidation, plain and simple. Well done to the locals that ripped them down.

I agree KitkatCHA.

Are they not entitled to grieve because the dead person was not a good man?

Yes but not by putting flowers outside the house he was in the process of burgling. Is that so difficult to understand?

Are they not entitled to grieve because the dead person was not a good man?

Yes, they are. But they should NOT expect sympathy from the general public so perhaps grieving in private would be the best way forward, eh?

Is that so difficult to understand?

I'm not saying I personally agree with it, I'm saying that is the norm in their culture and I don't particularly see a problem with it. IT's just some flowers, thats all.

Another one here who hates those inappropriate "tributes" . I went to the Angel of the North last year and a little grove of trees on the site has been taken over by tatty floral tributes, cards, teddies, etcetera, most of them left to rot - as far as flowers wrapped in plastic can rot. I could understand someone laying flowers where someone has died in an accident, but let's face it, unless there has been a spate of leaping from the top of the Angel of the North that I haven't heard about these tributes are not in the right place, are not visited and cared for and are frankly an eyesore. How anyone can feel that a teddy bear so rotted that its body has fallen off and all that is left is a rain sodden head is a fitting tribute to a dead friend is beyond me.

I also feel the same about those damn padlocks that are defacing more and more bridges in London. I have a great desire to arm myself with a bolt cover and an avenging warrior outfit and do a sweep one night.

They can grieve. They don't need to do so at the property of their relative's would-be victim. If a man tried to rape a woman in her own home and she killed him in self defence would it be okay for the rapist's family to leave loads of flowers and cards at her property saying what a great bloke he was?

I'm making the point that the flowers are about the family. Are they not entitled to grieve because the dead person was not a good man?

Of course they can grieve, but put the flowers at his own house then, not at a pensioners house which he was attempting to burgle!

Of course the family is entitled to grieve, but doing it by by placing flowers and cards by the burgled house is intimidating.

I don't understand how flowers are meant to be intimidating? Whats so scary about carnations?

Very pleased someone has taken it upon themselves to remove the litter. If you want to grieve pit up a headstone and place your flowers in a cemetery, end of.

Did the carnations walk themselves there? Or do you not think his friends and family members arriving at his home could be seen as intimidating?

Carnations are an assault on good taste anyway.