This feels wildly overblown. "Police visit person to tell them not to do the thing they seemed like they were doing, person agrees not to"
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
122 points (95.5% liked)
News
28477 readers
4401 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This feels wildly overblown.
Oh, but this story's got it all, no matter who you are there's an archetype in here that will annoy you
It follows a complaint by the Bradgate Park Trust, which runs the park, that Mrs Gather picked mushrooms illegally because it is a designated site of special scientific interest (SSSI).
...
Mrs Gather, from Derby, revealed details of the community resolution order on TikTok this week.
...
However, police have subsequently admitted that the order was not valid because the officer dealing with the case mistakenly got her husband to sign the agreement, rather than her.
...
According to Leicestershire Police, the complainant said it was reported Mrs Gather had a small knife, which meant they did not feel able to approach her.
I guess some people have nothing better to do than to make their business other people's business. A gal with an interest in mycology isn't a threat, and if she was, maybe it's because the mushroom in question had Common Side Effects.
She was there, with a foraging basket, and a knife to cut mushrooms, and was specifically looking for those inkcaps, but she totally didn't forage any on that day from that park.
That seems more than just an interest in mycology. And if the park is a protected area, they are right to enforce it.
She could have just easily been a contract killer with a silenced uzi there to murder her target and put their head in the basket as confirmation of the kill. If youre going to accuse people of crimes based purley on circumstantial evidence you might as well go big right?
They showed up because of a witness report and did not attempt to convict her. A "remember not to do this for this reason" is an appropriate response to the (circumstantial) evidence
What you're using is conjecture, especially since there's no actual evidence she did indeed take the aforementioned mushrooms. Her gathering tools are not evidence, merely coincidence.
"It seems someone had followed me, taken pictures of my car registration and passed them on to police."
It could be that someone (possibly one of the volunteers) found this photogenic orange-haired girl suspicious, alas had no evidence that she did indeed take said mushrooms (no photos/videos, actual evidence), yet reported her anyways.
There is incomplete information in this story to form a logical conclusion or bias. Besides, the officer failed to enforce anything, especially as she never signed the agreement (the husband did, so it was rescinded).
She has the surname "Gather" and looks exactly like the kind of person I'd imagine picks mushrooms. Nominative Determinism strikes again!
Her husband's name is Hunter
This whole thing is a joke right? A put up between the newspaper, cops, and park management?
Welp, sounds like he said she said at this point. But she was there with a foraging basket and knife, asked people if they had seen those mushrooms, said it was on her bucket list. She was definitely there to pick them lol.
She never denied it. She said she was looking for Magpie Inkcaps, a type of mushroom.
The cops messed up by getting her husband to sign an agreement meant for that said there would be no charges as long she didn’t do it again and learned what and SSSI is.
Then the cops realized they messed up and said “don’t sweat it”
UK police having their priorities straight. London is a rat trap.