No plenty of people are saying violence is bad yet weirdly condone the granny assaulting the young man.
But you're smart enough to understand why that might be though?
Make that decision at the time… now we know where they live.
No but you turn up, and the odds are against you. What do you do then? Go ahead with your original plan? Or, let's face it, you'd run away. And therein lies the rub; it's all about power. It's all fine whilst power is on your side, but when it's against you, what do you do then? There's always, always, someone bigger, harder, or just more mental and prepared to use extreme violence, than you, out there. And if you continue down the route of using violence as a 'tool', one day, you'll meet them.
What would you do/have you done?
They can do as they wish so long as they don't bother me or damage my property.
Generally harmless but annoying and normal for western culture.
If this was in Borneo they would probably be regretting into their adulthood probably mentally traumatised too. In Borneo their parents would be punished first and they would see their parents traumatised in front of them when the community hit back as a way of punishment. The punishment would be blunt and brutal.
If the police resources were put in before the incident it might not of happened,
Scotes will do what they want if they regard somewhere as an ungoverned space
No but you turn up, and the odds are against you. What do you do then? Go ahead with your original plan? Or, let’s face it, you’d run away. And therein lies the rub; it’s all about power. It’s all fine whilst power is on your side, but when it’s against you, what do you do then? There’s always, always, someone bigger, harder, or just more mental and prepared to use extreme violence, than you, out there. And if you continue down the route of using violence as a ‘tool’, one day, you’ll meet them.
Sorry, but you sound like the sort of person who looks for an excuse as to why you shouldn't get involved.
I'm not judging that, some people just don't feel confident to. But I don't understand your criticism of people who don't sit back and accept the wrongs done against them or others in their community; who are willing to step forward and say "That's not on!" Without at least the perception that people will call them out, or take a stand against them, there are unfortunately those in our society who will see that as permission to do as they please, take what they want and make everyone's life a bloody misery.
nickc
This suggests you see it as neutral (see: just) , to be used as necessary
But here you imply context. There’s a lack of internal consistency in your thinking isn’t there?
But you’re smart enough to understand why that might be though?
To start at the last .. yes... I see why but then that is not my inconsistency is it? It's apparently fine for a 72yr old grannie to assault this young gentleman.
No but you turn up, and the odds are against you. What do you do then? Go ahead with your original plan? Or, let’s face it, you’d run away. And therein lies the rub; it’s all about power. It’s all fine whilst power is on your side, but when it’s against you, what do you do then?
As I said we'd have crossed that bridge when we came to it. Had we thought that would be the case we would have taken a few of the extra lads from their rugby club but since he was expecting a lone woman we didn't think that would be necessary.
There’s always, always, someone bigger, harder, or just more mental and prepared to use extreme violence, than you, out there. And if you continue down the route of using violence as a ‘tool’, one day, you’ll meet them.
So what do you suggest in the meantime? Just let people steal from me or my family and friends?
If someone decides to have a go anyway should I just plead with them to stop hitting me, offer to pay them to stop?
The truth is most of the people who act tough and menacing aren't, they are just people used to getting their own way through threat and people being submissive.
Equally many if not most of the really really dangerous people don't respond to "you dropped your litter" with "so what you going to do about it" either because they save violence for the ring (or people robbing them), military operations, have years of training or for the scariest because they are psychopaths who operate below the radar like the Hindley's and Bundy's or because their employer is a psychopath.
As I said we’d have crossed that bridge when we came to it. Had we thought that would be the case we would have taken a few of the extra lads from their rugby club but since he was expecting a lone woman we didn’t think that would be necessary.
So; your version of 'proportionate response' to what is fairly low level crime (not condoning bike theft, it's horrible to suffer, but in the grand scheme of things, it's low level), is to turn up mob handed to physically intimidate someone? So; what if they'd then got their rugby mates, who are bigger than your rugby mates, what do you do then? What if, when faced with such a scary situation, someone pulls out a knife or even a gun, and someone gets seriously injured or killed? Over a stolen bike? And you think that's ok?
So what do you suggest in the meantime? Just let people steal from me or my family and friends?
Maybe consider what is appropriate and proportionate action, rather than going round there mob-handed and running the risk of causing/encountering violence? Yes it's frustrating, but that's life.
The truth is most of the people who act tough and menacing aren’t, they are just people used to getting their own way through threat and people being submissive.
I can't quite believe the irony here...
Sorry, but you sound like the sort of person who looks for an excuse as to why you shouldn’t get involved.
No; you weigh up the pros and cons, and act accordingly. Risking escalation of a situation over something relatively petty, isn't being 'hard', it's being stupid.
I’m not judging that
But you just did...
Sorry, but you sound like the sort of person who looks for an excuse as to why you shouldn’t get involved.
The last time a mate of mine got involved - he ran over and king hit the guy in the back of the head - knocked him unconscious, the guy banged his head on the way down and was unconscious for a good hour. His wife was even more traumatised because of that by the end of the night.
Domestic violence doesn’t always and often doesn’t need more violence to solve, it’s such a retarded idea - what’s needed is better mental health provision, education and intervention teams.
The reason the UK is shit, is because everyone there thinks they’re “hard”
It's because they are. They're been getting told so since Shakespeare.
The fewer people stand up the more that antisocial behavour is normalised.
I've tried telling people they've dropped litter etc, occasionally they just pick it up, mostly they tell you to **** off, or they do it but then drop more 50m down the road. The issue for me is why do so many people feel so antisocial in the first place?
I remember being in Geneva airport after a UK festival crowd had left on coaches for an event I was working at - Swiss guy was devastated/furious at all the litter that had just been left lying around. Anecdotally I feel like most other European countries are much cleaner and others say the same - why? My theory would be it's the huge inequality and selfish individualistic attitudes we are taught to have here.
Fear of being disapproved of/bollocked isn't really the way to make people behave like decent human beings.
bridges
So; your version of ‘proportionate response’ to what is fairly low level crime (not condoning bike theft, it’s horrible to suffer, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s low level), is to turn up mob handed to physically intimidate someone? So; what if they’d then got their rugby mates, who are bigger than your rugby mates, what do you do then? What if, when faced with such a scary situation, someone pulls out a knife or even a gun, and someone gets seriously injured or killed? Over a stolen bike? And you think that’s ok?
Whether they feel intimidated or not is really up to them... perhaps they should have thought of that before stealing the bike.
So; what if they’d then got their rugby mates, who are bigger than your rugby mates, what do you do then? What if, when faced with such a scary situation, someone pulls out a knife or even a gun, and someone gets seriously injured or killed? Over a stolen bike?
Seriously.. who gives a toss? I'd never do anything if I lived my life like a mouse.
What if I fall off my bike? What if someone runs into me? What if a meteorite strikes the house?
Maybe consider what is appropriate and proportionate action, rather than going round there mob-handed and running the risk of causing/encountering violence? Yes it’s frustrating, but that’s life.
What exactly do you mean by running the risk of causing/encountering violence?
That's like saying by setting off early to a click and collect I run the risk of arriving 5 mins early and having to stand outside for 10 mins... it's a minor inconvenience but if it means missing the rush hour traffic it's well worth it.
I mean ideally the lads mum could have gone round by herself and asked nicely... ideally the click and collect would open at a time to avoid rush hour ... but in the vast scheme of things the minor inconvenience of some violence is outweighed by the major inconvenience of having a bike stolen.
I can’t quite believe the irony here…
If you can't understand the difference between hitting someone to stop them hitting you or stealing from you and hitting someone to steal from them you need a good hard think.
If you can’t understand...
I think we'll leave it there, because you clearly don't.
bridges
I think we’ll leave it there, because you clearly don’t.
Perhaps you need to view this from respecting the wishes and customs of others?
This is merely respecting the different ways different people prefer to do things. It's no different than someone says "collect only" for a bike sale or "no trades"...
If someone say's collection only or no trades I don't keep asking them to justify WHY ... I might experimentally ask "if I arrange a courier" or "would you trade for" but if they say no I don't start hassling them why not.
Bloke nicks bike, advertises on eBay
His Mum finds the bike and we find a resolution that's acceptable to everyone.
His family decided they were not going to pay to get the bike back...
His mother didn't want to have sex with him for the bike
So the thief was given a choice of options acceptable to him ...
a) hand over the bike
b) we're taking it anyway
He decided on option a which is good as it was our preferred option... the rest is up to the thief.
If he feels more comfortable handing over the bike after being beaten up then he can choose that option, if he wants to not get beaten up he can choose that option.
It's merely being respectful of others different ways of doing things.
My preferred option is he just hands over the bike but I'm not so disrespectful of others so if he prefers because it's his preferred way of doing things he can get a battering first if that's what he wants.
It may well be his preferred method was to get paid and have sex with the mum but that wasn't on the table.
The same with the thieves on my drive.
They made it clear that threats of violence was their preferred method of communication.
It would be dis-respectful of me not to consider their choices. Perhaps they have a Spartan mother at home who wants to see them come back with the injuries or the loot?
I'd have been much happier had they just left when asked or even happier of they had offered to pay me a fair part of the going rate for the 350kg of steel but that wasn't a valid choice for them so I was willing to respect their wishes and use violence.
It turned out that they didn't actually want violence and the threat was all they needed to satisfy their wishes.
What I didn't do was insist on my preferred method ... that my method was the only way.
It's like they needed the real threat of violence to accept they can't just steal from people's property through intimidation.
Cougar; get a life. Seriously. And perhaps have some input into this thread, the reason I joined this forum:
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/getting-back-in-the-saddle-whats-new/
It would be a more constructive use of your time.
Stevextc; I'm not going to continue arguing with you because a) it's not a very constructive use of my time, and b) we're always going to see things differently, so let's leave it at that. Thanks. I'll say just this, however: standing for something you believe in, is a world apart from using the same tactics of fear and intimidation as others, to get what you want. So; if you feel you have to use such, then that's always going to be your call. These are decisions we must all make in society. I hope that clears things up.
bridges
Sorry, but you sound like the sort of person who looks for an excuse as to why you shouldn’t get involved. I’m not judging that
But you just did…
No. I didn't. What I said was..
I don’t understand your criticism of people who don’t sit back and accept the wrongs done against them or others in their community; who are willing to step forward and say “That’s not on!”
Saying I don't understand someone's viewpoint, is not judging it. It is stating simply that I do not understand the thought process through which someone goes to arrive at that viewpoint.
A lot of the circular discussion here seems to be perpetuated by your and others' (I'm looking at you oakleymuppet) misnterpretation of what people mean when they state that they are happy to speak up/stand up when people 'try it on'.
I'm not sure if you really don't get the difference, or are just being obtuse for the sake of it.
oakleymuppet
The last time a mate of mine got involved – he ran over and king hit the guy in the back of the head – knocked him unconscious, the guy banged his head on the way down and was unconscious for a good hour. His wife was even more traumatised because of that by the end of the night.
This is certainly not what I (or, I'm pretty sure most of the people posting here) think of when I talk about speaking up against people anti-social behaviour. That's just having a scrap.
The 'discussion' seems to have run it's course now. And for that reason...
The reason the UK is shit, is because everyone there thinks they’re “hard”
Nah. The reason it's shit is because no-one cares.
They say they do. They'll flag-wave and whine about sovereignty and foreigners and all the rest of it, right up until the point where they have to take some responsibility. Then the fast food wrappers go out of car windows with gay abandon, cars get keyed out of jealousy, I get to look at crudely spray-painted cock & balls out of my bedroom window. It's all someone else's fault. And it doesn't matter because everyone else is doing it, what's another dog poo or fag end when we're ankle-deep?
An integral part of our nation's psyche is an overinflated sense of superiority and entitlement, both as individuals and as a country. It's a cancer on our society. As a previous poster wrote, all we hear is "who do you think you are?" That isn't what they mean, what they mean is "do you think you're better than me?"
Wander round a town centre in another European country. Go to France, say, or Poland. Hell, go to the US. Sure, everywhere has its good and bad bits but generally it's just not like here and it's a stark contrast. Their national pride manifests as keeping the streets clean rather than beating someone up because they happen to have been born brown.
it’s apparently OK for the 72 yr old granny to assault the 23 yr old bike thief…
Far as I can see, her 'assault' was holding onto a bike with two hands until he gave up.
The worst thing in that video is the two blokes just standing watching the show.
Well yes Cougar, I agree - but all of that individualism is wrapped up in a wannabe "I'm hard" America light individualism. They all think they can get rich and live the 'Murican dream in little England. People wouldn't be say "Who do you think you are", if they aren't up for confrontation. In Japan, you'd get sheepish looks of embarrassment and profuse apologies.
spray-painted cock & balls out of my bedroom window
Must admit, I did once put a huge cock and balls on the parents driveway using a power hose.
Cougar; get a life. Seriously. And perhaps have some input into this thread, the reason I joined this forum:
I was a moderator here for ten years, I recently resigned. In my experience as such, in the vast, vast majority of times when someone is argumentatively vocal five minutes after joining it's a continuation of why they were previously banned in the first place. We can smell them a mile off because they just can't help themselves. After a while you get to recognise persistent individuals' "handwriting" even.
If I'm wrong and your tale is genuine then I sincerely apologise. But you are very much an outlier should that be the case.
Either way, it's no longer my concern. The team have means of cross-referencing and will work it out one way or the other, I have no doubt.
If I’m wrong and your tale is genuine then I apologise. In either case, it’s no longer my concern. The team have means of cross-referencing and will work it out one way or the other.
No. I didn’t. What I said was..
All due respect; what you said was:
"you sound like the sort of person who looks for an excuse as to why you shouldn’t get involved"
Your exact words. In my mind, that's a judgment. I never said 'don't get involved' clearly, there are times when you need to, to protect yourself or others. But again; there's a difference between that, and using threats and intimidation to counter other threats and intimidation, in a manner which could escalate matters way beyond anything reasonable. See what I'm getting at? So; someone thinks it's ok to take matters into their own hands, but then if you do so, and fall foul of the law, you have no redress, do you? You can't just say 'oh well he started it'. I actually think Stevextc's approach to getting the stolen bike back was probably 'proportionate', and it's good it worked out ok; I'm just pointing out that such actions can, and often do, have very negative consequences. It's that, which we must think about before acting at all.
As a previous poster wrote, all they hear is “who do you think you are?” That isn’t what they mean, what they mean is “do you think you’re better than me?”
Now this, is something I'm happy to engage with. With so much in society, it's all about power relationships. The kind of people who throw litter on the floor are invariably those lacking self-respect; the ones that do it to get a reaction, are those who feel unempowered in their lives. It's worth examining that aspect, in order to understand, and find ways to lessen/prevent such behaviour, that's the best approach. Those lary little ****ers in the video riding their bikes through Asda; they know it's out of order, and they're just doing it to get a reaction, in order to be able to feel some sense of 'power', that's very clear. It's really not far removed from a bunch of hooligans in a pub, as alluded to earlier. Gang/mob/pack mentality. I know I was guilty of that as a youth, and I'd be amazed if many others weren't as well.
So; how do we, as a society, help those who feel unempowered, feel empowered?
If I’m wrong and your tale is genuine then I sincerely apologise. But you are very much an outlier should that be the case.
No worries. I'm a narky **** at the best of times. I mean no-one any malice though, so I hope it's all good.
👍 likewise.
But again; there’s a difference between that, and using threats and intimidation to counter other threats and intimidation, in a manner which could escalate matters way beyond anything reasonable. See what I’m getting at? So; someone thinks it’s ok to take matters into their own hands, but then if you do so, and fall foul of the law, you have no redress, do you? You can’t just say ‘oh well he started it’. I actually think Stevextc’s approach to getting the stolen bike back was probably ‘proportionate’, and it’s good it worked out ok; I’m just pointing out that such actions can, and often do, have very negative consequences. It’s that, which we must think about before acting at all.
It all comes down to what you think are "very negative consequences" or "beyond anything reasonable". Everyone has different ideas and perceptions of this.
Some people would say breaking an arm is "very negative" .. I fall of bikes as a hobby... I expect to and do break a few bones every year. Some people think a dislocated shoulder is a "very negative consequence", others just see it as missed races but would view a torn achilles as "very negative consequences" yet they still take the risks. I mention these specifically because this isn't a male preserve.
Some people think its a joke to get someone to roll off a 5' blind drop onto rocks and some people think it's a joke that their mate just got them to roll off a 5' blind drop onto rocks ... knowing that I'd view anyone breaking into their parents house and stealing 2 one-off custom bikes would expect to have the holy shit beaten out of them when they get caught... and knowing that I wouldn't think there is "excessive". If you go round targeting and robbing the parents of someone who has spent years killing people as a job you have to realise if you get caught the consequences are likely serious.
The thing is there are always some people willing to take that risk but as the consequences become more serious and likely the numbers of these people diminish rapidly.
Having a couple of Rottweilers is a great deterrent to burglars ... however having a sign saying "Danger Guard Dogs" is nearly as good.
This is why as someone else said earlier ... some dick with an expectation of the crowd intervening will think twice before actually doing something... the problem is they know from experience they can intimidate or threaten people in front of a crowd and no-one will step in.
Far as I can see, her ‘assault’ was holding onto a bike with two hands until he gave up.
The worst thing in that video is the two blokes just standing watching the show.
Exactly my point .. (do you know the (alleged) thief wasn't prosecuted) but then neither was the granny. You have to wonder if the two lack of prosecutions are related in a deal.
However, it wasn't HER bike and she had no proof it was stolen ... so she was on shaky ground but being a 72yr old granny was in her favour.
Now swap her round mentally for a 6'8" (or whatever) ex marine... and the fact you don't know the bike had been stolen you just watch the video. Obviously its a bike so you'll be biased but imagine how that might change your perception...
Notice the guys in the video sorta grab the bike but avoid grabbing the guy? Why do you think that is?
My point from the other thread p7eaven brought here is we need more people like that granny and we need the two blokes to feel like they can grab the bloke and if necessary get involved and that they won't be in court having to justify.
Remember the bike thief can leave any time he wants he just has to let go of the bike... he choses not to because he's (presumably) confident the blokes (or any other passers by) won't get involved or if they do he'll sue their asses.
Those lary little **** in the video riding their bikes through Asda; they know it’s out of order, and they’re just doing it to get a reaction, in order to be able to feel some sense of ‘power’, that’s very clear. It’s really not far removed from a bunch of hooligans in a pub, as alluded to earlier. Gang/mob/pack mentality. I know I was guilty of that as a youth, and I’d be amazed if many others weren’t as well.
Erm .. so that's the thing. Me and all my mates spent our spare time doing martial arts and competition fighting. Getting lary in a pub or elsewhere was considered VERY VERY BAD form.... I stopped fighting professionally when I had my finals as I was constantly healing something.
So; how do we, as a society, help those who feel unempowered, feel empowered?
Well, those 2 blokes in the video and all the passers by need to feel they can get involved without justifying their actions in court.
TBH, the thread was won on page 1 with this:
Things are getting shitter in the United Kingdom not because of pacifist lefty wokism but because yall voted Tory who have spent the past 11 years underfunding your police, undermining your judiciary and encouraging further increases in inequality.
TBH, the thread was won on page 1 with this:
To be fair if your 1974 means year of birth you missed part.
The watershed I saw started with the miners strike and then poll tax riots.
It became apparent that the government couldn't rely on local policing to stand-up to the local communities if the local communities vastly outnumbered the police and the police were community police.
Prior to this is was "normal" for communities to stand against an injustice or threat and if they were violently attack to respond.
What came out of this was social engineering the if you are attacked it's not acceptable to fight back.
We started to punish children for being bullied if they stood up for themselves or their friends instead telling them they should let the other kid(s) knock them unconscious then "tell a teacher" when they come round because fighting back is "uncivilised/unacceptable".
Over time this developed a pavlovian reaction to fighting back in any way shape or form (violent or not).
The unintended consequences of this were to break local communities apart and to encourage those who are already outside of communities due to their criminal behaviour to exploit this.
"Why didn't you stop the burglar you saw leaving my house with my possessions? "
"I'm not going to jail for your possessions, I shouted at them and they told me to F-off or get battered so I called the police they may come round tomorrow, next week, who knows .. it's what we're meant to do, you can claim on the insurance anyway"
So we developed into a nation more interested in our shoes than noticing the granny being beaten up...
I deleted my original response, to summarise I don't believe in vigilante justice and I do believe in properly funding our justice system so that people who do commit crimes are rehabilitated into society and contribute.
We started to punish children for being bullied if they stood up for themselves or their friends instead telling them they should let the other kid(s) knock them unconscious then “tell a teacher” when they come round because fighting back is “uncivilised/unacceptable”.
I was raised in a household where the opposite view held sway. I'd happily DM you my experiences of that, spoiler alert - it's not pretty.
To be fair if your 1974 means year of birth you missed part.
Undoubtedly.
The watershed I saw started with the miners strike and then poll tax riots.
It became apparent that the government couldn’t rely on local policing to stand-up to the local communities if the local communities vastly outnumbered the police and the police were community police.
There's a common theme to both events. If you voted for the party that was in office then and is in office now and complain about heavy handed and inconsistent policing then I've some news for you.
There’s a common theme to both events. If you voted for the party that was in office then and is in office now and complain about heavy handed and inconsistent policing then I’ve some news for you.
That's a bit of an assumption. I didn't EVER and neither do I expect the majority of this forum.
I was raised in a household where the opposite view held sway.
This is about communities and the nation(s)
to summarise I don’t believe in vigilante justice
This is the problem ... stepping in to protect a pensioner who is being beaten senseless vigilante justice?
When did it become vigilante justice to dare ask someone to stop stealing from a neighbour in case they attack you and you end up in court?
and I do believe in properly funding our justice system so that people who do commit crimes are rehabilitated into society and contribute.
We don't have a society as such any more... and perhaps as a result of that the justice system is ineffective.
Our court system is full of people defending themselves for acts such as failing to secure a ladder so a thief can't use it to break into their house... determining if the granny being beaten required someone to physically touch the mugger... chasing people who have say iplayer coererced onto their TV into buying TV licences even though they don't use it etc.
The police system has NEVER been there for crime (in general). e.g. for burgulary it doesn't usually just randomly spot a guy climbing out if a window with a mask and a sack saying Swag ... it relied on a community to see the guy and detain him until the police arrived.
Now most people are more scared of detaining the burglar and defending their actions in court than anything else.
so that people who do commit crimes are rehabilitated into society and contribute.
You mean just lie to a parole board to get released early and go back to committing crimes with the added skills and knowledge they learned in rehab?
Our court system is full of people defending themselves for acts such as failing to secure a ladder so a thief can’t use it to break into their house
I’m not arguing otherwise as I don’t have the info/stats, but again, from where/who are you getting yours?
How do you know that the courts aren’t instead/actually full of cases of abuse?
ie (not an exhaustive list, and feel free to cherry-pick as I simply copy pasted.
* Assault, hitting, slapping, punching, kicking, hair-pulling, biting, pushing
* Rough handling
* Scalding and burning
* Physical punishments
* Inappropriate or unlawful use of restraint
* Making someone purposefully uncomfortable (e.g. opening a window and removing blankets)
* Involuntary isolation or confinement
* Misuse of medication (e.g. over-sedation)
* Forcible feeding or withholding food
* Unauthorised restraint, restricting movement (e.g. tying someone to a chair)
Domestic violence or abuse can be characterised by any of the indicators of abuse outlined in this briefing relating to:
* psychological
* physical
* sexual
* financial
* emotional.
Types of sexual abuse
* Rape, attempted rape or sexual assault
* Inappropriate touch anywhere
* Non- consensual masturbation of either or both persons
* Non- consensual sexual penetration or attempted penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth
* Any sexual activity that the person lacks the capacity to consent to
* Inappropriate looking, sexual teasing or innuendo or sexual harassment
* Sexual photography or forced use of pornography or witnessing of sexual acts
* Indecent exposure
Types of psychological or emotional abuse
* Enforced social isolation – preventing someone accessing services, educational and social opportunities and seeing friends
* Removing mobility or communication aids or intentionally leaving someone unattended when they need assistance
* Preventing someone from meeting their religious and cultural needs
* Preventing the expression of choice and opinion
* Failure to respect privacy
* Preventing stimulation, meaningful occupation or activities
* Intimidation, coercion, harassment, use of threats, humiliation, bullying, swearing or verbal abuse
* Addressing a person in a patronising or infantilising way
* Threats of harm or abandonment
* Cyber bullying
Types of financial or material abuse
* Theft of money or possessions
* Fraud, scamming
* Preventing a person from accessing their own money, benefits or assets
* Employees taking a loan from a person using the service
* Undue pressure, duress, threat or undue influence put on the person in connection with loans, wills, property, inheritance or financial transactions
* Arranging less care than is needed to save money to maximise inheritance
* Denying assistance to manage/monitor financial affairs
* Denying assistance to access benefits
* Misuse of personal allowance in a care home
* Misuse of benefits or direct payments in a family home
* Someone moving into a person’s home and living rent free without agreement or under duress
* False representation, using another person’s bank account, cards or documents
* Exploitation of a person’s money or assets, e.g. unauthorised use of a car
* Misuse of a power of attorney, deputy, appointeeship or other legal authority
* Rogue trading – e.g. unnecessary or overpriced property repairs and failure to carry out agreed repairs or poor workmanship
Types of modern slavery
* Human trafficking
* Forced labour
* Domestic servitude
* Sexual exploitation, such as escort work, prostitution and pornography
* Debt bondage – being forced to work to pay off debts that realistically they never will be able to.
Or maybe the courts are ‘full’ of cases of dog poo crime? Or drug offences? Or people suing others for making them stub their toe? Could I make that ‘argument’?
I guess what I’m asking Steve, is how do you know that you aren’t skewing the argument in favour of an (unwitting) straw-man snapshot of the situation based on ‘anomalous’ cases which may only gain high public profile (and distortion) via the media/clickbait/outrage-mongering?
Our court system is full of people defending themselves for acts such as failing to secure a ladder so a thief can’t use it to break into their house… determining if the granny being beaten required someone to physically touch the mugger… chasing people who have say iplayer coererced onto their TV into buying TV licences even though they don’t use it etc.
What a load of absolute rubbish.
You mean just lie to a parole board to get released early and go back to committing crimes with the added skills and knowledge they learned in rehab?
You mean just don’t have the figures for recidivism to hand so throw out the claim that most (more than 50%) of criminals reoffend unless there is a very real threat of violence/harm to their person?
Our court system is full of people defending themselves for acts such as failing to secure a ladder so a thief can’t use it to break into their house… determining if the granny being beaten required someone to physically touch the mugger… chasing people who have say iplayer coererced onto their TV into buying TV licences even though they don’t use it etc.
I strongly suspect that you're conflating your perception of what is going through our court system than the reality.
This is the problem … stepping in to protect a pensioner who is being beaten senseless vigilante justice?
A very specific scenario described there, most pensioner abuse happens behind closed doors, making it difficult to "step in". I have on one occasion "stepped in" when travelling home on a train late at night when a drunk guy has harassed a lone woman. In doing so, I made sure that the police were waiting for the perpetrator when he got off the train.
When did it become vigilante justice to dare ask someone to stop stealing from a neighbour in case they attack you and you end up in court?
If this is something you witnessed first hand then how did you deal with it, did you report it to the police? Did you attempt a citizen's arrest?
You mean just lie to a parole board to get released early and go back to committing crimes with the added skills and knowledge they learned in rehab?
In the UK our justice system is increasingly punitive in that long sentences are meant to be a deterrent, while there's less focus on rehabilitation. Statistically, 75% of criminals who receive a custodial sentence will reoffend within nine years of release, 39.3% will reoffend within twelve months of release. In Scandinavia, where the per-capita prison population is very low and more emphasis is placed upon rehabilitation, reoffending rates are less than 20%.
It's well worth reading up on https://thesecretbarrister.com/ for first hand accounts of how our justice system is being systematically hollowed out and how fewer offenders are caught.
...chasing people who have say iplayer coererced onto their TV into buying TV licences even though they don’t use it etc...
Is this is a conscious non-sequitur?
Now most people are more scared of detaining the burglar and defending their actions in court than anything else.
There are examples of vigilantism whereby a suspected criminal has been physically harmed and later proven to be innocent - we've seen this occurring during The Troubles, not to mention this guy, who slashed car tyres of vehicles being driven by people seen to be using mobile phones. Again, no actual proof of wrongdoing was given, nor was there any consideration given to the thought that the person suffering the financial loss of having to replace tyres may not have been the person driving the vehicle and using their phone.
p7eaven
I’m not arguing otherwise as I don’t have the info/stats, but again, from where/who are you getting yours?
Or maybe the courts are ‘full’ of cases of dog poo crime? Or drug offences? Or people suing others for making them stub their toe? Could I make that ‘argument’?
Randomly youtube selected a tv license video last night.
I was just sorta chilling not taking note until they showed how many people in a single magistrates court were there for not paying for a TV license.
This just made me think, pretty much everyone I know who has had a court appearance (or invitation to) is over some trivia like a PCN (me), swerving into a bus lane to avoid a fire engine (me)...
The video itself was actually about a pensioner who legally didn't have to pay... court ruled in their favour and TV licensing refused to refund... and apparently the baliffs were called in against the BBC.
I doubt you meant this to be a debate about TV licensing and it is just a topic example... the point really being that the modern non-community (IMHO) way is to just send stuff to courts.
The person may have a perfectly valid excuse/reason but the council (for example) don't even read it. I went to court for the PCN ... they were dismissed .. I didn't bother for the bus lane as I don't own the cameras.
Indeed for lots of things courts find the overwhelming majority of cases dismissible. I looked into a few before, I think one is box junctions for example. Fines are issued without evidence (a photo isn't evidence) or the box junction itself is illegal. the council know this but still send a demand or "see you in court".
How do you know that the courts aren’t instead/actually full of cases of abuse?
Without reference to your list the main answer is because any serious local cases are all over the press.
There are examples of vigilantism whereby a suspected criminal has been physically harmed and later proven to be innocent
If someone is leaving the neighbours house with a TV or taking someone's pension etc. it's a bit beyond "suspected". Or in my personal case 2 blokes stealing off my drive in front of me. I asked them to leave nicely... one just came and threatened me whilst the other continued stealing.
Whether they are later proven innocent or not doesn't change the fact they were stealing from me and asked to leave.
There is a world of difference (IMHO) between asking someone to stop stealing, they threaten you so you hit them (or I managed to get them to leave by producing a steel bar) and going round with a battery powered angle grinder and finding someone looks like they might be the right one.
It’s well worth reading up on> https://thesecretbarrister.com/
prob worth a read later so bookmarked but what you are saying isn't a world off what I was saying
If this is something you witnessed first hand then how did you deal with it, did you report it to the police? Did you attempt a citizen’s arrest?
I don't report ANYTHING to the police anymore.
and I'm not going to make a citizens arrest because I then have to wait for the police.
On occasions I have intervened I don't wait round for the police either. In one I was thanked by the bus driver and advised to get off and disappear as he had already reported the youths and police would be on their way and wanting to arrest someone.
Now most people are more scared of detaining the burglar and defending their actions in court than anything else.
I don't think this is true in the majority of cases, it all sounds a bit Daily Mail. Are Muslims going to try and get Christmas banned this year again too?
We're not all fortunate enough to class ourselves as (ex-)professional fighters. I'm ten stone wet through. Any lack of intervention on my part wouldn't stem from a fear of court retribution for use of excessive force, it'd stem from a fear of waking up next to a machine that goes 'beep'. I'd expect that your habitual criminal is no stranger to violence and so is rather likely to be better at it than I am.
Cougar
Any lack of intervention on my part wouldn’t stem from a fear of court retribution for use of excessive force, it’d stem from a fear of waking up next to a machine that goes ‘beep’. I’d expect that your habitual criminal is no stranger to violence and so is rather likely to be better at it than I am.
Back in the 70's or 80's you wouldn't have been intervening alone and more importantly the habitual criminal wouldn't expect you to remain alone.
So instead look at the tenacious granny again... you are one of those 2 blokes and other blokes are walking past and the "normal" thing to do is wade in and help the granny so you fully expect the other guy to help and a couple of passers by.
That's not the normal situation though .... and the habitual criminal is no stranger to lack of violence, indeed even to your "non expert eye" he can't look very good at it either. There is no audio but I imagine what he's telling the blokes is he'll have them prosecuted for assault if they lay a hand on him.
Wouldn't it be better if the granny had backup and knew people would step in?
If your driveway incident had gone the other way, you'd ended up in a fight, one of those guys had been hit by you, fallen and taken a bang to the head, and later died, you'd be on a manslaughter charge. Rightly so. A self defense argument would be of little help as you'd picked up the steel bar. This sort of thing happens all the time. If you're determined to sort this kind of thing your way you'd be wise to get better acquainted with the law and stop posting about it on social media.
Rightly so.
So you're suggesting if someone comes up and say's give me your phone, car, bike I should just say here you go?
Hence why violence needs to be renormalised.
The law needs to be changed, if they hit me and they die that is their problem.
They shouldn't have been stealing from me in the first place, they should have left when I asked.
If people like living then don't go stealing from people then threaten them then hit them... otherwise they can do what they want when they want with no consequences.
Back in the 70’s or 80’s you wouldn’t have been intervening alone and more importantly the habitual criminal wouldn’t expect you to remain alone.
Like I said, it all sounds a bit Daily Mail. "Back in the day..." followed by some halcyon scenario that never actually existed - I grew up in the 70s and 80s - doesn't really convince me otherwise I'm afraid. Quite the opposite in fact.
So instead look at the tenacious granny again… you are one of those 2 blokes and other blokes are walking past and the “normal” thing to do is wade in and help the granny so you fully expect the other guy to help and a couple of passers by.
You've got two people struggling over a bike. How do you know the granny isn't the bike thief and the young lad is just trying to get his bike back? How reliable is your profiling before deciding whose side to take? Which of those two looks most like a cyclist to you?
The "normal" thing to do in this country is to mind your own business, to not get involved. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way it is and it's the way it's always been in my living memory. A fear of getting it wrong promotes inaction, it's safer to do nothing.
How many folks on here know basic first aid, for instance? And how many don't know it because they don't want the responsibility, best to leave it to someone better?
So you’re suggesting if someone comes up and say’s give me your phone, car, bike I should just say here you go?
Hence why violence needs to be renormalised.
At what point does this logic fall down? If someone comes up and says "give me your phone etc" and they have a knife or worse, are you still going to play John in First Blood or are you going to shrug and make an insurance claim? Do you value your bike more than your left kidney?
Normal people aren't going to come out best in a fight with an attacker. "Come and have a go then if you think you're hard enough" is a monumentally dangerously stupid approach for most people.
The law needs to be changed, if they hit me and they die that is their problem.
The law isn't the problem here. The law states that you're allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. If you use unreasonable force - and given your background, you of all people should be able to give someone a discouraging slap without murdering them to death - then you're going to get the book thrown at you and rightly so as in that case you're clearly a psychopath.
Steve, your proposition is similar to 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun...'. how's that working out for the USA in your estimation?
The solution to the problems you're experiencing is a properly funded police and criminal system as a back up for properly funded education.
Also you need to stop posting stuff like 'if they hit me and they die that is their problem.' because you may be unfortunate and find this being used in court against you one day.
If your driveway incident had gone the other way, you’d ended up in a fight, one of those guys had been hit by you, fallen and taken a bang to the head, and later died, you’d be on a manslaughter charge. Rightly so
Not necessarily. You have the right to use reasonable force, defined as reasonable in your mind, at that time, believing you were at serious risk.
That pensioner a couple of years ago wasn't charged for the death of the burglar he stabbed. Tony Martin was convicted because he shot a burglar in the back as he was leaving.
You're right of course but equipping yourself with a weapon risks it being taken off you and used against you and also weakens your defence.
I have sympathy for the 'rather be judged by 12 peers than carried in a box by 6', don't get me wrong, but property is not worth dying or being imprisoned over.
What about people who aren’t burly? If the attacker or thief is packing a knife/shank etc and when you threaten to ‘persuade’ them with your fists they decide to rush you (and anyone helping you) with it, you should be better equipped. Maybe it’s time to bring back swords and pistols as per Victorian England? Give everyone/all genders/sizes etc a fighting chance, not just the big brave foolhardy guys?
Or if guns are too much for the British trembly upper lip then what about the good old Irish fighting stick (shillelagh)?
