Sunday, 6 November 2011

Burglary Charge

A Worcester Park man has been charged with conspiracy to commit burglary after approximately £30,000 worth of jewellery and watches were stolen from a property in Leatherhead.

Nathan Beutler, 19, of Lindsay Road, has been remanded into custody and will appear at Guildford Crown Court on Thursday 17th November for a preliminary hearing.

The charge relates to a burglary at an address in Highlands Avenue, Leatherhead, on Tuesday 25th October. Several high value items were stolen including a Smythson leather jewellery box worth £1,500, a princess cut diamond ring worth £2,500, a Boodle and Dunthorne platinum pendant with three diamonds worth £3,000, a diamond and ruby ring and a variety of watches.

The stolen items have yet to be recovered, and Police are appealing for anyone with information on their whereabouts to contact them. 

A 16-year-old male from Worcester Park was also arrested on suspicion of involvement in the burglary. He has been released on police bail until 14th December pending further enquiries.

17 COMMENTS (Add Yours Now!):

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I agree that this should be the case, it is just a shame that this does not apply across the board for all offences. Once proven guilty, irrespective of age the names of the guilty should be published. If you are old enough to do the crime then you are old enough to be identified.

Jeff said...

What on earth are you talking about saying this information cannot be published until proven guilty. Newspapers and TV report arrests and charges brought against people all the time - it's news and it's perfectly legitimate to report it.

Anonymous said...

It might be legitimate to report arrests but it can ruin lives in the process such as in the recent case of the nurse arrested and vilified in the papers before all charges against her were dropped.

Miz said...

People who burglar ruin lives so let's not worry about ruining theirs.

Anonymous said...

Please stick to what affects us on a day-to-day basis. For many in Worcester Park, these issues include parking and the high street.

Presumably you've just copied and pasted the above from a source - he/she might not have their facts right. Leave the newspapers to fight the libel cases.

There are plans within the legal system, I believe, to restrict reporting until someone has been charged because of the number of people arrested and villified who have since been proved innocent. Remember the landlord arrested and held overnight (or longer) over the murder of the architect in Bristol (name escapes me). He was not the murderer, yet his arrest was publicised nationally. It then only takes some prick on Facebook and the like to write "I remember what he did when he was 15", etc for a load of nastiness to emerge.

Yes, the first man you mention was charged but please leave this sort of news for the busy-bodies, not those with a legitimate interest in community issues - making the community a better place for everyone, not making an individual family's life hell because of what a relative may/may not have done.

Anonymous said...

Actually, of course you can publish this; he has been charged- FACT. The article in no way says he is guilty. You're allowed to report on facts.

lso police are appealing for the stolen property to be found, and publishing this article might actually help with this appeal. If it helps someone get their stolen property back, then good on WP blog for publishing this.

Anonymous said...

Yeah it might help findout facts but it aint gona help any more givin the name and adress take it off now or ur ima go nuts were all from worcester park so we will find out who published this on here so if I was u take it off now!

WP Resident said...

Mr Anonymous you clearly feel strongly about this, why so? Can't you understand that other residents have a right to know what's happening in the neighbourhood? We feel equally strongly aout it.

And what's this about "ima go nuts"? Was that comment meant to sound like a threat?

Anonymous said...

If blog readers want to know about such matters then they should buy the local newspaper, where the material has probably been written and edited by someone with legal knowledge. Or stick your nose in the magistrates court.

If the article has been copied and pasted from elsewhere then the blogger should surely acknowledge the source. In this instance, I suspect the intellectual property belongs to the Sutton Guardian.

The original author may have made a mistake - the name may be incorrect, for example. Or it may be someone's idea of a wind-up put on a social networking site and then lifted. Let your readers know the source.

In the meantime, he is not a threat, apparently (the article says he is in custody...), to the public. Let his family get on with their lives.

Again, leave the potential libel to the newspapers. I doubt very much that the politicians you met would approve of this sort of reporting on a local blog.

Although a charge is not a decision as to whether someone is guilty or not, it is one step up the ladder from an arrest. Can't you wait until a verdict is reached?

jason @ security door chains said...

Burglary is one of those "it's sort-of-ok-if-it-doesn't-happen-to-me" crimes along with fraud because it doesn't hurt anybody (usually) and insurance claims can be made too.
But it affects lives, affects emotions and affects memories, so let's not forget that.
Having said that, I'm not a name and shame believer when it comes to certain crimes, but burglary Yeah, let's name.

Anonymous said...

i find it quite disturbing that any name should be posted on this person before he has even been to court,i mean it says conspiracy to burgle..i mean lets assume this blog reader who goes out around xmas dressed as santa claus, was lets say accused by a parent or child of touching them inapropiately.or smacking them, would he feel happy that his disguise was shown with name and adress before he had an oppurtunity to clear his name?? i suspect not,being named a pervert or worse would not be kind to his family in the community, just like its not nice for this mans family..if guilty then popst what ya like..

Anonymous said...

Another point I think is worth making is that some of your readers may think an arrest automatically means guilt. And conspiracy to burgle can imply a number of things. NB, conspiracy.

Please stick to the issues that affect us on a daily basis. The man in question is not compromising our safety in any way. I suspect the only reason the Sutton Guardian reported the matter at this stage was because the police apparently want information on the possible whereabouts of the jewellery and they were desperate to fill space.

This man may be libelled and subject to harassment as a result of this article on your site.

And what is the copyright situation? If you don't have to attribute the source of your "news", can't we all go round copying and pasting from a magazine, for example, and setting up our own magazine?

Judging by the standard of accuracy on the Guardian website, bear in mind basics such as the name and address may be incorrect.

I'm sure more people in the neighbourhood are affected by basics such as not being able to cross the high road (roadworks) than they are by allegations made against a 19-year-old in Greater London. If he were a few years younger, you'd have no right to print his name at any stage of the legal process.

Yes, burglary affects lives. False allegations and unnecessary reporting also affect lives - he and his family may be harassed.

Gordo's Neighbour said...

Presumably this was posted because the police are seeking more information and identifying the persons charged may help this? If so, whilst I understand the concerns about posting the names, I'd support WP Blog's decision to put this up.

Yes, Mr. B could well be innocent - in fact, as it is, he is innocent as he has yet to be found guilty by a jury/the courts... anyone who's minded to harass him or his family should bear this in mind. Such harassment would be as low as the alleged crime.

On the other hand, if you think you know something about this, go speak to the police...

Anon (4.39) - you haven't pointed out anything in the blog which is a 'false allegation'. Rich irony in you accusing WP Blog of 'false allegations'...

Anonymous said...

You clearly don't grasp the idea that the final paragraph is a round-up, a conclusion - a point on a general note, not specific to this article/the Sutton Guardian's article.

But, your point about anyone who's minded to harass him is a very good one.

Lord Cynic of Lindsay said...

Nothin' to do with me !

Anonymous said...

So what happened to this poor persecuted alleged burglar? Is the scroat locked up yet?

Post a Comment

The Worcester Park Blog welcomes your comments and opinions!