Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Would You Confront A Thug...??


Lantern Swinger
Wow go you!! :p

Although you forgot your ip is still logged, so you can still be found out

Id never have the guts to do that lmaoo


I don't think the IP being logged would make a difference, we aren't the chavs.
Good on you, you should have been there in the morning when he came out and videod his reaction, and put it up on YouTube.


Lantern Swinger
Yes I would and have, have a fair knowledge of the law and what is/isnt permissable.

I feel if more people were to make a stand instead of walking by then a lot of the behaviour you are referring to would stop. People do it (Not only Kids) because they know they can get away with it, eg dropping litter, not cleaning up your dogs mess etc etc.

You want it to stop you act and the majority will overcome the few mindless individuals that cause these problems. If one person gets away with it then others are likely to follow!
Topaz said:
I agree with national service! Sort the little thugs out =]

I wouldnt confornt them no... they 'kinda' scare me, although I nearly started shouting at some guy for causing arguments in the pub earlya.

If there is more then one 'i' back away, if theres one theyr nothing lol

pissed again Topaz ? :thumright:


War Hero

The idea of chucking the little darlings into *Boot Camps*
is somewhat appealing...and not just for a couple of weeks.
There seems to be quite a few out-of-the-way places where
they can be taken for a bit of re-programming. No camera-phones,
spliffs, designer clothing, Subarus, X-boxes, bottles of booze.
Just them, and a few nice politically-incorrect ex-military types
to point out the error of their ways.

Deleted 7

I know who ImHiding is, IP will link you :thumright:

Your post made me chuckle though


Would i confront the litle "darlings". Yes.

And have done so. Mind you, i came off worse for it. Then again, not as bad as my other half did.She ended up in hospital after 5 of the little cnuts filled us in.

They knew i was in the RN at the time,and believe this was the reason they attacked us.We were just walking past, minding our own business, only to be chased and confronted by the 5 of them.

Now , i wasn't carrying anything "handy" with me. I'm not a nutter who carries a weapon on me whenever i go out.But, i now carry a maglite in the car or have it nearby. I'm not taking any chances nextime. Especially when the little shits get 80-100 hours community service for attacking me, and NOTHING! for putting my wife in hospital!!!

The police were great in their approach to this.helped us out no end! They were positively disgusted when the thugs got off with it.



War Hero
Book Reviewer
Old_Bill said:
All the posts in this thread are, unfortunately, a sad indictment of the society we have the misfortune to find ourselves living in.

We should, collectively, stand up to thuggery and anti social behaviour, but only as far as the law will allow. In answer to Sgt Pepper, I quote Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1963. " A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, in the arrest, or assisting in the arrest of an offender, or in the apprehension of a person unlawfully at large, etc, etc"

That, folks, means force up to and including, the taking of a life.

O_B: I'm well aware of the section (it's the section that allows me to handcuff a person, in the lawful execution of my duy), but your reference is incorrect; actually it's the Criminal Law Act 1967 Section 3(1) definition which states:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

So what is reasonable force? The general principle is that the law allows only reasonable force to be used in the circumstances and, what is reasonable is to be judged in the light of the circumstances as the accused believed them to be (whether reasonably or not). Case law Palmer v R (1971) states that a jury must be satisfied that:

- A person who is being attacked should not be expected to "weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action".

- If the jury thought that in the heat of the moment the defendant did what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary then that would be strong evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.

- A jury will be told that the defence of self-defence will only fail if the prosecution show beyond reasonable doubt that what the accused did was not by way of self-defence.

Aditionally Common Law states that the defence of self-defence operates in three spheres. It allows a person to use reasonable force to:

(a) Defend himself from an attack.

(b) Prevent an attack on another person (e.g. R v Rose (1884), where the defendant who had shot dead his father whilst the latter was launching a murderous attack on the defendant's mother, was acquitted of murder on the grounds of self-defence.)

(c) Defend his property.


Book Reviewer
A mate of mine walked into a pub with his other half, an attractive woman, three of the local idiots sat at a table smirking, one made a remark that wasn't that pleasant. Mate walked across and invited them to stand up.
"Why?" he was asked, I never hit a man when He's sitting down, says he.
Result, they stood up, he knocked them down again and told them to leave the pub, which they did.
I asked him later why he went for all three, I wasn't sure which one said it and I didn't want the guilty one to get away with it.
For those that remember Desperate Dan from the Comic, my mate is the splitting image. I suppose that helps

Latest Threads

New Posts