Cambridge boat race clash with travellers' funfair sparks safety fears after student 'attacked by catapult-wielding teens who spit at rowers and use sandwiches as missiles'
The safety of Cambridge University students is feared to be at risk amid a potential flashpoint between historic boat races and a travellers' fair on the same weekend.
Concerns have intensified after a student rower putting their boat away was hit by a metal nut fired from a catapult by teenagers sitting across the river last summer.
Other incidents in previous years have included youths spitting at boats while leaning over the edge of bridges as well as sandwiches and bananas being used as missiles.
Another clash is feared ahead of the May Bumps rowing event which takes place between June 18 and 21; with the Midsummer Fair on between June 18 and 22.
The fair is a popular traveller gathering held on Midsummer Common, opposite many college boathouses, and is one of England's oldest such events dating back to 1211.
But a spate of recent incidents has led Dr Isabel Nimmo, chairwoman of Cambridge University Combined Boat Clubs (CUCBC), to express fears about student safety.
In an email to college captains, Dr Nimmo said she was considering not racing on the Friday and Saturday, which are the two busiest days of the fair, for safety reasons.
She has also asked police to patrol the river to avoid any problems, although pointed out that there were not any problems when the two events clashed years ago.
One boats captain, who did not want to be named, told The Times: 'None of us want Bumps to be cancelled, but we also don't want it to be unsafe either.
'When the fair's on we're usually advised to steer clear of the boathouses entirely so I'm definitely worried about racing on the last two days.'
One rower told university newspaper Varsity that, during a previous Midsummer Fair, a group of three young people used 'a catapult to fire metal 10mm nuts' at him and his friend while putting their boat away – one of which left his leg bleeding.
Another rower, speaking about training during past Midsummer Fairs, told the publication: 'Normally it's manageable; the only thing to look out for is the occasional person throwing stuff at you.'
Captains are also worried about the 'Boatie Mash', which is a party after the Bumps in a Cambridge club shared with locals – and have advised rowers not to attend.
But the Friends, Families and Travellers charity, which combats discrimination against travellers, has accused CUCBC members of promoting 'harmful stereotypes'.
A spokesman said: 'It is alarming that, despite no evidence, time and resources are being directed toward scapegoating and demonising gypsy and traveller people.'
The Showmen's Guild, which organises the fair, said: 'We have meetings every year with the Police and SAG [safety advisory group] that is formed to deal with this event.
'We have never at any of our meetings had any reports of incidents regarding rowers from any of those involved with the SAG group.
'To my knowledge this is the first year we have a clash with Bumps; we cannot control anything that happens outside of our perimeter for the event.'
A CUCBC spokesman said: 'A small number of boat clubs expressed concerns about the timing of May Bumps this year, as it partly overlaps with the Midsummer Fair, another mass spectator event.
'Cambridge University Combined Boat Clubs have held positive discussions with relevant local bodies and are not concerned that Midsummer Fair will interfere with the smooth running of the event.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
HMRC failure to notify MPs sooner about £47m phishing scam ‘unacceptable'
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has been warned by a committee of MPs that its failure to report details of a breach affecting around 100,000 taxpayers is 'unacceptable'. The Treasury Committee said it was only alerted to the information when a notification was published on the HMRC website on the same day as a live session. On June 4, it emerged that HMRC had lost £47 million after a phishing scam breached tens of thousands of tax accounts. Senior civil servants at HMRC told the Treasury Committee that 100,000 people have been contacted, or are in the process of being contacted, after their accounts were locked down in what they said was an 'organised crime' incident which started last year. On Tuesday, the committee published a letter from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) stipulating that it had not discussed the phishing incident with HMRC and was not aware of it prior to the hearing on June 4. The committee also published a letter sent via email from its chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier to John-Paul Marks, chief executive, HMRC. The letter said: 'I am alarmed that it was never deemed necessary to inform Parliament about an issue which affected such a vast number of taxpayers and led to the loss of £47 million of public money. 'To discover this information during a session from press reports and without adequate time for the committee to review the information in detail is unacceptable.' The letter said the committee is seeking responses from HMRC as to 'why was Parliament not notified earlier about the loss of £47 million of taxpayers' money, whether through a written ministerial statement and/or public or confidential letters to the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee?' The committee is also seeking responses over why the update was published on the day of the committee hearing on the work of HMRC and who else in Government was told about the incident and when. It also wants to receive a timeline of how the incident unfolded and find out what measures HMRC has put in place to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future. The letter asked for a reply by June 24 2025. Meanwhile, the letter from Glenn Collins, head of technical and strategic engagement, ACCA, to Dame Meg, dated June 5, said: 'While we regularly engage with HMRC, including earlier in the year about issues relating to agent account access, we have not received any communication from HMRC on the issue of taxpayer account breaches until yesterday. 'We have highlighted to HMRC our frustration that HMRC has not been transparent or timely in its communication over this important issue.'
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Police Federation pays £15m to officers hit by cyber attack
The Police Federation has paid out £15 million to 19,000 current and former officers who had their personal details compromised and stolen by cyber criminals. Two huge attacks exposed the home addresses of some officers to hackers six years ago, and in March 2022 the federation admitted liability for unlawfully processing officers' personal details by not having proper protection in place. The attacks sparked panic among rank and file officers who feared their safety had been compromised. The federation has admitted that two recently settled group actions 'have had an enormous impact on the finances and assets of the PFEW (Police Federation of England and Wales) and the organisation could not withstand a further claim of this nature'. Hackers accessed Police Federation systems and encrypted several of its databases during the attacks, making them inaccessible. Now the organisation, which represents 145,000 rank and file officers, has agreed to settle the claim for £15 million, inclusive of legal and insurance costs. It had been claimed that the names, email addresses, National Insurance numbers and ranks of around 120,000 police officers had been exposed. A source said: 'This is a huge settlement. It caused huge concern among rank and file police officers up and down the country.' 'Agreed a settlement' The settlement had been revealed by Monckton Chambers, the law firm. Mukund Krishna, the chief executive officer of the Police Federation, said it was his priority to resolve the two historic action claims that 'hung over the organisation' when he became CEO in July 2023. He added: 'At the end of last year, we agreed a settlement following the employment tribunal ruling against us regarding pension discrimination. 'I am now pleased to say that we have settled the data protection claims brought against PFEW by just under 20,000 members and former members. This claim followed two separate cyber attacks suffered by the federation over six years ago. 'The federation has taken the pragmatic view that settlement of the litigation is in the best interests of both the federation and its members. 'The negotiation of these settlements has required a huge amount of detailed work but will, collectively, provide the federation with much greater financial certainty going forward. This outcome will also allow PFEW to move on and focus all our efforts on transforming the organisation and serving the membership.' A total of £15 million will be paid in stages, which covers all 19,159 claims for damages but also includes legal costs, expenses and the costs of insurance cover.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Nephews locked in court battle over dementia-stricken aunt's £400k estate
Two nephews are locked in a £400,000 fight over the fortune of a widow, who disinherited one side of her family after they suggested she go into a care home. Doreen Stock, who did not have any children, died in 2021 aged 86. She left her entire estate to her nephew, Simon Stock, and his wife Catherine, who lived close to her south London home. Mr Stock claimed he had been like a son to Doreen – but the will is now under challenge in court after Doreen's great-nephew, 39-year-old Ben Chiswick, launched a bid to inherit it himself. Ben, a propulsion engineer who is based in Michigan, US, had been due to inherit her fortune under a previous will written in 1986 when he was a baby, but was dramatically disinherited by his great-aunt a year before her death after his parents suggested Doreen spend time in a care home. He is fighting to reinstate the previous will, claiming Doreen, who he says was a 'fixture in his childhood', was too stricken by dementia to properly understand what she was doing when she changed her wishes. However, the Stocks are fighting the case, claiming Ben – who has lived in the US since 2017 – had no "meaningful relationship" with Doreen beyond his early years. Simon, meanwhile, had been 'the nearest thing to a son she had', they said. Sitting at Central London County Court, Judge Jane Evans-Gordon heard that "independent" and occasionally "stubborn" Doreen had a deep emotional attachment to her home in Charminster Road, Mottingham, having shared it with her husband Samuel until his death in 2001. Doreen's first will, made in 1986, ultimately left her estate to Ben, the son of her niece Patricia Chiswick and husband Brent. The estate principally contains the Mottingham house, which is valued online at about £400,000. The court heard Doreen had had a good relationship with the Chiswicks, who helped her with her shopping and visited her regularly. She even made a lasting power of attorney in their favour, but before she died she revoked the document and changed her will, leaving everything to a nephew on her husband's side: tax advisor Simon Stock and his wife Catherine. Challenging the will, Ben Chiswick claims that his great-aunt's dementia in her final years means there is serious doubt whether she had the necessary capacity to make the changes. He said the fact there was no discussion with his side of the family about the new will suggested "something not right" about her change of mind. "Doreen and I had a really happy relationship and she understood that leaving her estate to me would make a massive difference to my life," he said in his evidence. Barrister James McKean, for Simon and Catherine, told the court that Doreen had also been close to Simon, contributing to his school fees as a child. Although she previously had a close relationship with Ben's parents, that was ruined when they suggested she go into a care home in 2019, the court heard. To make matters worse, Patricia had then arranged for a "capacity assessment" for her aunt, which the barrister said led to Doreen fearing her independence was being threatened and ultimately changing her will. There had been "building resentment" with the way her power of attorney was being administered, which "finally boiled over in the summer of 2019 when the Chiswicks made an ill-judged – though perhaps well-intentioned – suggestion to Doreen that she spend a period in residential care'. 'Doreen was, by all accounts, jealously independent. It is little wonder that she found the proposition to be alarming and offensive," the barrister said. 'No doubt Doreen was worried about the prospect of going into a home, then was asked to undergo the capacity assessment, and put two and two together." Within weeks of the assessment, which resulted in a report stating she "lacked capacity", she had begun steps to revoke the power of attorney and make a new will in Simon and Catherine's favour, he told the judge. Quizzing Patricia Chiswick in the witness box, he added: "Doreen loved her home and it had been her and Samuel's home before his death. There was a deep emotional connection to that property. "Saying to Doreen that she should leave that property and spend some time in a care home was offensive to her, wasn't it? "From Doreen's perspective, this must have looked a real threat to her independence." But Patricia denied upsetting the pensioner, insisting that the plan was only ever for a short break in a care home while she and her husband went on holiday. "It was simply a suggestion because we don't usually go away for three weeks at a time, and I think she had been quite unwell and her health was deteriorating in general," she said. "I was concerned about leaving her and I thought it would be quite nice if she could go somewhere where she could be looked after while we were away. "It was absolutely stressed that it was for three weeks. There was no suggestion she was going to stay there indefinitely." The Chiswicks did not visit Doreen again between the capacity assessment in 2019 and her death in May 2021. For Patricia's son Ben, who is the claimant in the case, barrister Simon Lane said that, at the time she made the new will, she was 'vulnerable and was behaving out of character'. The 2019 assessment conducted after the suggestion of a care home move had resulted in an expert's finding that she "lacked capacity", he said. But Mr McKean said the assessment was deficient, with Doreen answering with "prickly hostility" when she was quizzed about things that made no sense to her, such as a fire which never actually happened. Other assessments around the same time had resulted in findings that she did have capacity, although she was suffering with "mild" dementia, he said. "Doreen may have had some memory problems, but capacity and memory are different beasts," he said. "The court will struggle to find any evidence of impaired cognition or reasoning. On the contrary, Doreen's behaviour, values and reasoning were consistent and plausible at all times." He said there was reason for her to decide to change her will, the last being made more than 30 years previously, and that by then Ben – living and working on the other side of the Atlantic – would have been "far from her mind as a beneficiary". He had not seen her again or even spoken on the phone after moving to the US, while most of the evidence of their relationship came from when he was a child. On the other hand, Simon and Catherine had been able to visit her regularly, living not far from her in Eltham, south London, he said. "The court can be surprised neither by the making of the disputed will, nor by Doreen's choice of beneficiaries," he added. The judge is expected to give her ruling on the case at a later date.
