I apprehended an individual who stole a bicycle. The authorities took no action until they reprimanded me.
Fiona Bateman claims to have apprehended a bike thief in the act. However, when she reported the incident to the police, they took no action and instead reprimanded her for protesting outside the thief’s residence.
When Fiona Bateman uploaded some photos on to her neighbourhood Facebook page to inquire if anyone happened to know the chap it featured, the response was overwhelming. It was, everyone agreed, a local character known as ‘Dave the Bike Thief’.
Dave was definitely living up to his reputation by being captured on CCTV entering Fiona’s family’s bike storage area during a winter lunchtime. He used bolt cutters to steal Graeme’s £450 mountain bike, which was 18 years old at the time.
According to Fiona, describing someone who steals a large item in broad daylight in a suburban square in an Oxfordshire market town as “bold as brass” is not an unreasonable statement.
However, the CCTV footage clearly identified the culprit. Additionally, Fiona’s social media network quickly discovered his identity and address, as well as the fact that he had committed similar offenses before. With this information, the 53-year-old woman was optimistic that the police would recover her son’s bike in just a few hours.
No, that’s not quite accurate. Fiona remembers that the local police showed a complete lack of interest. Even though she provided them with CCTV evidence and an address, they didn’t even bother to approach Dave the Bike Thief’s residence. Their response to Fiona was, “It’s just one bike.”
Fiona Bateman is standing outside David Seagar’s place, holding a sign that reads “Where is my bike, Dave?”
CCTV allegedly showing David Saegar stealing the bike in Witney, Oxfordshire
Fiona stated, “At that moment, I retrieved my Sharpie pen.” Using the pen, she proceeded to write a noticeable sign inquiring, “Dave, do you know the whereabouts of my bicycle?”
After enduring the cold winter weather, she courageously positioned herself outside the residence of 49-year-old Dave Seagar, commonly referred to as ‘Dave the Bike Thief’, with the mentioned sign. She remained there for a complete duration of three days. It was only at that point when Fiona finally encountered a police officer. The local constable approached her to inform that she was not allowed to obstruct Seagar’s driveway or engage in any form of harassment towards him.
Fiona raises an eyebrow as she recounts how she proposed that since he was already present, he could approach the door and investigate the situation. However, he responded by stating that it was not his intended purpose for being sent out.
Was there ever a more perfect snapshot of the stultifying paralysis and baffling attitudes of today’s police, who appear to see low-level crime as something of a nuisance that householders should simply put up with? Fiona is hard-pushed to think of one.
She inquires, acknowledging the challenging nature of the police’s job and the necessity of laws to safeguard the innocent. However, she questions whether the current system also safeguards the criminals, leaving her uncertain about the effectiveness of any deterrents in place.
I may not have all the solutions, but I am aware that a change is necessary. Theft remains theft, regardless of whether it involves an expensive supercar worth £50,000 or a humble bike worth £500. It is unfair to expect individuals to simply accept it when someone steals something they have put effort into obtaining.
There is a widespread desire to avoid situations where individuals enforce the law themselves, however, there is a significant amount of discontentment present.
This sentiment — one surely shared by all reading this today — is all the more pointed, as it comes from someone who isn’t an activist or a vigilante, just an ordinary working mum who has found herself the unexpected poster girl for the grievances of a vast swathe of the nation.
She and her spouse Bob, who used to work as a compliance manager for a fire alarm company, operate a small shop in Kidlington. The pair has two kids – a 21-year-old daughter and Graeme, who is 20 years old and currently residing with his parents following the completion of his college program in gaming development.
Since he doesn’t have a driver’s license, his main mode of transportation, apart from public transit, is his bike. He bought it a few years ago and has made upgrades to it over time, including new tires.
Seagar was found guilty at Oxfordshire Crown Court following evidence presented to the jury, which indicated that he possessed a feeling of entitlement and utilized bolt cutters to cut through locks.
However, on November 17, 2021, Bob noticed a tall person riding a bicycle while pushing another bike next to them while he was working on miscellaneous tasks outside his house.
Fiona explains that she had witnessed the same individual riding a bicycle up the road just a short while ago. After Bob checked the carport and noticed that Graeme’s bike was gone, he called out to inquire if I had any information about whether Graeme was using it at that moment.
He wasn’t of course: a man they later came to know was Dave Seagar had taken it, as could clearly be seen on a CCTV camera installed by one of their neighbours. It showed Seagar enter the carport, slice through the lock with a pair of bolt cutters and wheel it away.
Fiona described it as very obvious, so she uploaded a video on Facebook and inquired if anyone recognized the person.
I received numerous notifications on my phone from people identifying him as “Dave the Bike Thief,” indicating that he was known by that name in the area.
Fiona confirms that Dave was indeed caught on Ring doorbell footage allegedly stealing another bike in a similar manner. Additionally, another neighbor reported seeing him riding past her house with multiple bikes throughout the morning.
Fiona and Bob had already contacted the police, who advised them to file a theft report online, which they promptly did. Fiona explains, “After obtaining the video evidence and the thief’s address, we provided the police with an update.”
The Batemans hadn’t received any updates by the following morning, prompting Bob to call the police once more. The person on the other end of the line seemed indifferent, questioning, “It’s only one bike, what are you expecting us to do?”
Fiona asserts that it is not merely a single bike, but rather multiple bikes. Even if it were only one bike, it had been taken without permission from its rightful owner, and action should be taken.
Fiona, feeling visibly frustrated, decided to take action after the fire was started. “I told Bob that I would wait outside his house. I wasn’t entirely sure what my intentions were, but I simply felt the need to take some sort of action,” she explains.
After his wife left, the husband decided not to discourage her, but he did call the police to express his mild worry about her well-being.
Fiona recounts, “After approximately 20 minutes, a police officer arrived to inform me of the restrictions. According to him, I am prohibited from conversing with Dave, impeding his activities, and loitering directly outside his residence.”
‘I have to confess that I was somewhat annoyed. I expressed my belief that it was not very just and considering that he was present, why didn’t he approach him or search his garden?’ A valid inquiry: the police possessed the CCTV footage, after all. So why didn’t he? ‘He explained that he couldn’t because that wasn’t his purpose for being there,’ Fiona explains. ‘They have their own methods and it must be executed correctly.’
Also fair — except that Fiona had submitted a crime report with evidence, and here was the suspect’s address. Surely ‘doing something right’ would involve a door knock? ‘You would think so,’ says Fiona.
Instead, following the departure of the police officer, Fiona’s husband Bob arrived to support her. It was then her responsibility to face Seagar when he emerged to argue with her and claim that she had mistaken him for someone else.
“I cannot reword”
Despite any obstacles, Fiona persisted in staying outside Dave’s house for three cold days, starting from ten o’clock in the morning and lasting until 4pm. She held a sign and was encouraged by the support of the local community.
She says that there were individuals driving by and offering me hot chocolate and hand warmers through the car window, while also asking if I needed to use the restroom and other similar gestures.
Fiona was aware that the likelihood of recovering her son’s bike was extremely low. A neighbor reported seeing a van pull up at Seagar’s house on the day of the theft, loading multiple bicycles into the back before driving off.
Fiona mentioned that we provided the police with the van’s number plate too. This incident sparked conversations because it wasn’t only my bike that was stolen; bike theft is a widespread issue. This statement holds true as statistics suggest that England alone will witness approximately 71,541 bike theft cases by the end of this year.
Only around 5 per cent are ever recovered and reunited with their owners. Little wonder, then, that frustrated bicycle owners have taken to their own sleuthing. Across the country, several self-styled vigilante groups have sprung up, advertising their services as a means to reunite owners with their stolen bikes.
During her sit-in, Fiona was approached by multiple bike owners who were frustrated and wanted to share their own terrible experiences. She recalls one lady whose custom-made bike for her disabled daughter was stolen, questioning what someone could possibly do with a bike specifically designed for a disabled person. Fiona also heard from another woman who had reported her stolen bike being advertised for sale to the police, and they had suggested that she pretend to be a buyer in order to recover it.
Fiona expresses her disbelief, doesn’t she?
Story after story, all of them with the same theme: it’s just a bike, and the police have got better things to do.
She acknowledges the necessity for the police to gather evidence and follow due process before filing charges. However, she expresses uncertainty about the additional evidence that might have been required in her particular situation.
‘If police had knocked on Seagar’s door on the day of the theft I think there is a high chance I could have got my bike back.’ As it happens, Dave Seagar was eventually brought to book earlier this month, after being arrested and charged with eight bike thefts committed during the summer of 2022 — meaning Graeme’s bicycle was not on the charge sheet.
He was convicted at Oxfordshire Crown Court after a hearing in which jurors were told that Seagar had ‘a sense of entitlement’ and used bolt cutters to slice through locks and get away with bicycles ranging in value from a few hundred pounds to an e-bike worth more than £2,000.
A person came back from an appointment and discovered that their bicycle, which was securely locked outside a medical practice in Witney, had disappeared.
Seagar received a two-year jail sentence, which was then suspended for a period of two years.
By way of mitigation, his barrister, Peter du Feu, suggested that his client’s own bike had been stolen and that his mobility problems had made Seagar ‘fairly callous’ about taking other people’s, while a probation officer said he stole bikes ‘deliberately and brazenly’ to get him from A to B.
“I was annoyed,” Fiona expresses. “It was obvious that he didn’t have to travel from point A to point B in our situation since he was already riding a bike. Moreover, the fact that his bike had been stolen before doesn’t give him the right to steal another one.”
Nobody would dispute that fact. The main issue, however, is determining the appropriate course of action. Fiona expresses her uncertainty by saying, “I wish I had the answer.”
“I cannot reword”
When we spoke to Thames Valley Police they encouraged cyclists to visit their website for tips on keeping bikes safe and a spokesman said: ‘We take all reports of cycle theft seriously and will investigate when such reports are made.
“In this instance, a theft was reported in Witney at approximately 1:25pm on November 17, 2021.”
After conducting an investigation, the report was submitted and will be reviewed again once additional information is revealed.
If you have more information, please contact 101 or submit a report on our website. Remember to mention reference number 43210520290.
How typically useless.
