A man who threatened a worker with a hammer at his local supermarket said I m from Salford, you best let me go after being tackled to the ground by a security guard. Damien Yates, 49, then told the guard: I will be back for you.
The attacker was a regular shopper at the store, in Longsight, and it was inevitable he would have been identified and caught, Manchester Crown Court heard. Yates was jailed for 32 months for attempted robbery on Friday, December 8.
The trouble began when Yates burst into the Farmfoods store in Stockport Road, Longsight, on October 27, brandishing a hammer and threatened a female worker who was cleaning the floor.
The court heard the raid took place at about 9pm and he warned the woman: You better open the till. Yates then raised the hammer above his head before the worker called for help, prosecutor Nicola Carroll said. The store s quick-thinking security guard was able to wrestle Yates to the ground and disarm him, before the police were called.
As the guard pinned Yates down, the defendant said: I m from Salford, you best let me go . I will be back for you.
Defending, Jane Miller said Yates regularly uses the shop as a customer. She said: Staff knew who he was and he was easily identified . It was inevitable he was going to be caught. Yates, of Hamilton Road, Longsight, is originally from Salford but had moved to fashion a new life for himself, Ms Miller said.
He has a history of addiction to class A drugs and has suffered from mental health problems, the judge heard.
Click to play Tap to play
The video will start in 8Cancel
The court was told that Yates is remorseful and has sent what the judge described as a heartfelt letter apologising to the shop worker. Ms Miller said a possible explanation for Yates offending was that he had a criminal debt of 600 to pay. Sentencing, Recorder Mark Ainsworth said: The incident was over in a matter of seconds .
Nevertheless it would have been a very distressing incident . It left her shaken up and not feeling safe in her place of work. The judge accepted that Yates, who has an appalling record of 53 previous convictions, recognised the consequences of his actions.
He previously pleaded guilty to one count of attempted robbery.
Security services missed a string of chances to bring in Salman Abedi in the months prior to the Manchester bombing, it has emerged. But he struck just days before a scheduled intelligence meeting about his activities was due to take place. An independent review into the attack concluded it is conceivable the atrocity could have been averted if the cards had fallen differently . Despite this, MI5 maintain it is ‘unlikely’ the plot could have been stopped.
Compiled by David Anderson QC, the report brings together the results of eight internal reviews by MI5 and the police, following the wave of attacks between March and June which included the Manchester bomb. The document lays bare how in the months and weeks before the attack there were a series of missed opportunities to confront Abedi – who had been on security services radar for THREE years and suspected of links to ISIS for at least two.
(Image: Joel Goodman)
We now know that MI5 received intelligence about Abedi that has turned out to be significant – but wasn t thought to be at the time . As a result, he was not under investigation at the time of the attack – and he remained a closed subject of interest . We now know he could have been placed on ports action after he travelled to Libya in April 2017 – a step which would have triggered an alert when he came to Manchester .
This would have allowed him to be questioned and searched at the airport under the Terrorism Act.
Abedi was not placed on ports action however – and killed 22 people, injuring hundreds of others, at a Manchester Arena concert shortly after returning to the city from Libya. Describing this, the report says an opportunity was missed by MI5 to place Salman Abedi on ports action . The report says that on two occasions in 2017 MI5 came by intelligence which had its true significance been properly understood would have triggered an investigation into Abedi.
(Image: Ian Cooper)
While the significance of intelligence was not fully appreciated at the time , the review concludes in retrospect , it can be seen to have been highly relevant to the planned attack . A subsequent data review of intelligence about 20,000 people identified Abedi as among a small number of people worth further examination – but Abedi struck nine days before a meeting was due to be held about this.
A meeting (arranged before the attack) was due to take place on 31 May 2017: Salman Abedi s case would have been considered, together with the others identified . The attack intervened on 22 May, it states.
Despite these findings, the report says that it is unknowable whether an investigation would have pre-empted and thwarted Abedi s attack, adding: MI5 assesses it would not. Describing MI5 s conclusions, the author says after detailed consideration of their intelligence – the intelligence whose true significance was not appreciated – it is unlikely Abedi would have been stopped.
(Image: Joel Goodman)
The report reveals for the first time that Abedi had been on security services radar for three years. In 2014 he was actively investigated by MI5 – for six months – when it was thought he might have been acting suspiciously with a second subject of interest . However, because of his limited engagement with persons of national security concern , he was classed as low risk.
The following year – in October 2015 – his case was reopened because he was suspected of contact with an Islamic State figure in Libya . The case was closed the same day when it transpired any contact had not been direct.
Despite this, the decision not to re-open the investigation into Abedi in 2017, following the new intelligence, was described in the report as finely-balanced and understandable .
There is a high degree of inherent uncertainty in speculating as to what might or might not have been discovered if an investigation had been opened on the basis of the new intelligence , MI5 s internal review, detailed in the report, concluded. MI5 s review also concluded: On the clear balance of professional opinion, successful pre-emption of the gathering plot would have been unlikely.
(Image: Joel Goodman)
The review – ordered by government several weeks after the May 22 attack – looked at what the intelligence services knew ahead of the Manchester bombing, as well as the earlier one at Westminster, and the ones at London Bridge and Finsbury Park in the weeks afterwards. While complimentary of both intelligence and counter-terror services in many respects, the report does suggest that Manchester s attack in particular could potentially have been averted.
It is not the purpose of the internal reviews, or of this report, to cast or apportion blame, it adds.
But though investigative actions were for the most part sound, many learning points have emerged .
It is conceivable that the Manchester attack in particular might have been averted had the cards fallen differently.
This is the shocking moment a Tesco security guard PICKED UP an alleged shoplifter – and dragged her kicking and screaming back into the store. The video was shot outside a branch of Britain’s biggest grocer in Cornwall. The footage, shot on Thursday, has since gone viral on social media and made headlines nationally.
A security guard employed by Tesco can be seen outside the shop entrance in the footage.
He is restraining a woman who allegedly stole from the store. The guard then picks up the woman and drags her into the store against her will, to detain her until the police arrive at the scene.
A police spokesperson confirmed two bottles Mo t & Chandon champagne were returned to the store as part of the incident.
Mr Collins uploaded the video to Facebook later that evening in a public post, suggesting that a large grown man shouldn t have been so physical with the woman. And debate subsequently broke out on the social media site. Mr Collins said: It seemed excessive from a completely neutral point of view, and also the fact that there were a lot of children all around, who had finished school and were going into Tesco.
I m getting a lot of stick from people, most of whom seem to be taking the point of view that this guy deserves a medal, that he s a hero, and that this woman is subhuman.
But I was the one who was there, and it was quite traumatic.
I shared the video publicly for no other reason than to make sure that this voiceless girl, who obviously has troubles in her life, that there was somebody who is standing up for her.
People like her are very much the voiceless people, who have no power or help.
Commenting on Facebook, Julie Hall Dawson also took Mr Collins’ side . She s not committing a violent offence, they should have called police not manhandled her like that . Jobsworth bullies. Rachel Tregurtha Mclean added: Are they even allowed to get that physical ? I wouldn’t have thought so, and even if she had stolen something I’m more bothered by how the situation was handled . If that was a child of mine I would go bonkers about it.
Keith Scully said: That’s assault, in every manner.. . Stick it on Tesco page, let me know how it goes . Wanna be cops… But many were in support of the security guard, stating that he was simply doing his job.
Vaughan Rouffignac was particularly vocal . He s doing his f******* job man, Mr Rouffignac said. “He’s allowed to use force if she doesn’t do as asked . I know him and he knows the rules.”
Georgie Grace said the individual shouldn t receive special treatment just because she is a female. She said: I might stroll out with my weekly shop tomorrow, quick wrestle with security but know it will be fine because some do-gooder will film it because I’m a woman and security is male and they’ll be in the wrong . Come off it.
Bryony Anne added: He has every right to bring her back into the shop so the police can be called . If I had children and they behaved this way I d call the cops myself! A spokesperson for Tesco said the company is “aware” of the incident, adding: We are assisting police with this matter.