Thieving little twats

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Dibs-h":2w3usdtg said:
Much was made of the case you refer to Jake - any man coming home to be confronted with several armed men who have tied up your wife and daughter and are threatening to kill them - what would any father\husband do?

.

Too right - in my case if they were threatening to harm swimbo i'd happily shoot them dead (having first bludgeoned one with a cricket bat and taken his firearm) then deal with the aftermath afterwards

whether i would call the police or go the woodchipper/pig farm route is a debateable point - and would depend on how good my story was looking.

Mind you given that swimbo is in to her tae kwan do there'd be a better than even chance of me arriving home to find several disarmed men lying on the floor groaning and waiting for their testicals to redescend
 
Dibs-h":16lq0zof said:
As for brain damage - that was rather over-egged don't you think.

I'm not a doctor and I have no knowledge of his symptoms. All the reports said he suffered sufficient brain damage not to be fit to plead to his own offences, which means he would have undergone some serious testing by multiple psychiatrists before that was accepted by the prosecution. And its a pretty tough test to have to pass - criminals don't escape prosecution because they are a bit or even very stupid.

The scrote had 50 previous

No arguments he was a serious scrote and seems to have committed very serious offences that day (albeit he hasn't been convicted).

and attented court that day himself - apparently none the worse for wear.

Did you speak to him, or do you just mean he was able to walk?

The mistake the homeowner made was to deal with the intruder outside. Had a cricker bat or any other implement been used inside the house and even resulted in the decapitation of the intruder - I doubt anything would have come it - certainly not to the extent it has\had as the case you refer to.

I agree.

For instance: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... guisher.do

The pair of them in that other case chasing him down and giving him a savage revenge beating was far more than they were entitled to do. They could use all the force that was necessary to defend themselves at the time and then to effect a citizen's arrest after they had caught him and there would have been no issues (unless there was a miscarriage of justice).
 
Jake":v9cq9050 said:
The pair of them in that other case chasing him down and giving him a savage revenge beating was far more than they were entitled to do.

the morale of that story being that if you do get red mist and chase down and beat twelve grades of grit out of a theiving scrote - dont call the police and dont hang about until some else does - have it away on your toesies and call an ambulance anonymously from a pay phone once you are some distance away (this may seeem unecessarily considerate but its in your interests not to have him die from hypothermia in the street.)

if there were witnesses to you chasing him make sure you get your story straight at an early stage

"no constable i just chased him for a bit, he disapeared over that way, ive no idea how he came to get the **** kicked out of him..."

If there is no hard evidence conecting you to him and you dont incriminate yourself then you wont get convicted - chances are good you wont even get charged - especially if you are of previously good character and hes a scrote with 50 previous convictions.
 
I disagree Jake.
My personal belief (and to hell with the law on this) is that if anyone enters my house and threatens the life of my wife and kids (whether I'm there or not) then I am duty bound to find them and draw the line exactly where ever I felt like. Would I lose any sleep over it - no not a single jot.
I doubt very much whether he'd be left with brain damage. If I hit someone in the head with my cricket bat there wouldn't be any chance of doctors getting involved afterwards - not that I would risk damaging my baby by hitting a person with it.
I can think of much better implements lying around the house and workshop to go after someone with rather than using something like a cricket bat.

Added:
It might of been more than they were legally entitled to do, but imo it was exactly what they were duty bound to do in order to protect their loved ones.
 
Well watch out then, because you would be convicted of murder which will really screw up your family even further.
 
Then so be it.

There's nothing to say that you have to hunt them down immediately. Assuming the police could even be bothered to find them, it would be sensible to let the pathetic punishment system in this country take it's ounce first. Then when they've been let out after a ridiculously short period of time they can f*** off and meet their maker under which ever stone he/she happens to reside.
 
The punishments dished out under our legal system are getting so ridiculous that you're going to see this sort of thing happening more and more and more until such a time as someone actually sits up and does something about it.
 
jlawrence":1euyctyl said:
not that I would risk damaging my baby by hitting a person with it.

I agree you really shouldn't hit people with babies. A baby is far to soft and light it would be like using a jelly hammer. Instead you should try hitting them adults and preferably those that workout a lot.
 
I 'think' I wouldn't go further than a 'Like for Like' reprisal should I catch someone attacking my family. Hurt them - I hurt you, kill them - you die too. Bit difficult to say though what would happen in reality. I'm not sure I would be considering 'legal' repercussions in the heat of the moment.
 
jlawrence":z6dbbejp said:
Then so be it.

That shows that your motive is not to care for your family at all. You are seeking vengeance. It's an ego thing, not something done in the best interests of your family.

There's nothing to say that you have to hunt them down immediately. Assuming the police could even be bothered to find them, it would be sensible to let the pathetic punishment system in this country take it's ounce first. Then when they've been let out after a ridiculously short period of time they can f*** off and meet their maker under which ever stone he/she happens to reside.

Likely to reduce your defences to a murder charge even further as you will be less able to plead provocation in mitigation.

Fortunately you are just spouting off on a forum (which is fair enough) and all this is academic.
 
I came across this which is quite interesting

THE following is the full transcript of the remarks of Judge John Reddihough, who sentenced Munir and Tokeer Hussain to prison at Reading Crown Court yesterday.

Munir Hussain, on the night of 3 September 2008, you and your family were the victims of a serious and wicked offence, when at least three masked men entered your home armed with knives and threatened you and your family, possibly intent on robbing you.

It was undoubtedly a terrifying experience for you and your family. The bravery of your teenage son in escaping from the house and raising the alarm and your courage in tackling one of the masked raiders, Waled Salem, brought the ordeal for your family quite quickly to an end.

It is clear that you pursued that invader of your home, Waled Salem, up the road outside and you were joined by others, including your brother and co-defendant Tokeer Hussain.

Salem was apprehended and cornered in the front garden of ...[another house in Desborough Park Road] and brought to the ground.

Four men including, as the jury found, the two of you, armed with weapons then proceeded to carry out a dreadful, violent attack upon him when he was defenceless on the ground.

That attack involved kicking and punching him, stamping upon him and striking him with weapons, including a hockey stick and a cricket bat.

The witness, Miranda McCloughlin, who was at the window immediately adjacent to where the attack was taking place pleaded with you and the two others to stop, telling you that you were going to kill the man on the ground.

She was disregarded and the attack continued. She described you and the other two men involved as acting like a pack of animals. It is purely fortuitous that the man Salem was not killed.

As it was, he suffered a number of fractures, including a skull fracture, and brain damage, giving rise to permanent injury.

It is somewhat ironic that by reason of the head injuries inflicted upon him he was unfit to plead and could not be sentenced to serve the very long period of imprisonment which would otherwise have been imposed upon him.

The prosecution rightly made it plain that there was no allegation against you, Munir Hussain, in respect of the force you used against Salem in defending your own home and family or of the force used by either of you in apprehending Salem.

However, the attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man.

It may be that some members of the public or media commentators will assert that the man Salem deserved what happened to him at the hands of you and the two others involved and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished.

However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice run its course, then the rule of law which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse. The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.

Of course, it is to be noted that it was never suggested by you or on your behalf in the trial that there was any justification for the attack upon Salem. You simply claimed that you were not involved in it.

The jury was sure that you were involved and convicted you of this serious offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause such harm.

I take very much into account that hitherto you were both men of excellent character and have made enormous contributions to your local community and involved yourselves in various voluntary organisations.

Many character witnesses, testimonials and references spoke to those matters. You are both successful and hardworking in your business and are devoted family men.

I bear that in mind together with all of the other matters put forward so eloquently on your behalf and contained in the reports before me. I take account of the oral evidence of Dr Joseph which I have heard in relation to Munir Hussain.

I have regard to the effect this case has had and will have upon you and your families and your business.

The sentencing guidelines for this offence, the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment, indicate that usually when such serious injuries result from such an offence, a very long sentence of imprisonment of seven years or more should be imposed after a trial.

Whilst I must have regard for those guidelines, I also have to have in mind the particular and unusual circumstances of this case and all the mitigating factors.

I have had regard, too, to relevant reported Court of Appeal cases, including R v Smith (2009), R v Fazal (2005), R v Lindley (2009) and A-G Reference 83 of 2001.

Immediately before you both committed this offence, Munir Hussain and his family had been the victims in their own home of a very serious and frightening criminal offence.

In my judgement, there was a high degree of provocation which led to this offence being committed and to you both acting out of character.

On the other hand, you involved yourselves in a terribly violent and unnecessary assault on Waled Salem which amounted to a revenge attack and you ignored pleas to discontinue what you were doing.

This case is a tragedy for you and your families. Sadly, I have no doubt that my public duty requires me to impose immediate prison sentences of some length upon you.

This is in order to reflect the serious consequences of your violent acts and intent and to make it absolutely clear that, whatever the circumstances, persons cannot take the law into their own hands and/or carry out revenge attacks upon a person who has offended against them.

The prison sentences I pass upon you are very significantly shorter than would have otherwise been imposed by reason of the degree of provocation involved and the other strong mitigating factors to which I have referred.

In your case Munir Hussain, the sentence is 30 months imprisonment and in your case Tokeer Hussain, 39 months imprisonment.

I have imposed a longer sentence on you Tokeer Hussain because in my judgement you were subject to less provocation than your brother, not having been a direct victim of the crime committed by Salem and the other men who invaded his home.

You will each be required to serve up to one half of the term imposed.

Bearing in mind that the sentence was reduced yet further by the Court of Appeal that all seems quite reasonable to me.

Y'all going to have to get used to the notion that we don't live in the Wild West you know.[/b]
 
Jake":39bsodv7 said:
Fortunately you are just spouting off on a forum (which is fair enough) and all this is academic.

I do so hope you're right.
I hope never to find myself in the actual situation of finding out what I would actually do.
 
jlawrence":gfxxfvp5 said:
Jake":gfxxfvp5 said:
Fortunately you are just spouting off on a forum (which is fair enough) and all this is academic.

I do so hope you're right.
I hope never to find myself in the actual situation of finding out what I would actually do.

Actually I have been in a similar situation and do know what I did , and what i would do differently if (god forbid) it ever happened again

when I was 19 my then girlfreind (and very near to being fiancee) was killed in a terrorist incident - what did i do about this , well apart from getting heavily into booze and substances and having a near breakdown, I actually did nothing ( Tho i did try to join the army as a squaddie (having been previously washed from POC before the incident occured) , they -quite propperly as i see now- wouldnt take me ) - but the guilt of doing nothing and not acting "as a man should" very nearly destroyed my life and it took me nearly ten years to get my head together and my life back on rack

therefore if anything similar happened to swimbo, and it is incredibly hard for me to even entertain the idea fior long enough to write this, i am quite certain that i would take retributive steps and i would do my utmost not to get caught in the act
 
Bluekingfisher":1n793udu said:
Lons":1n793udu said:
Bluekingfisher":1n793udu said:
Soon all the decent law abiding, tax paying, decent folks will be on the inside while the criminals will be on the outside, most probably in your home which has now been possessed to house the poor unfortunates.

Was in New Zealand and Oz in November and certainly felt much safer than here. A shock to the system when you come back TBH and NZ in particular seems to be as I remember (rose tints again) the UK to be in my youth when nobody bothered to lock their door.

My house these days is like Fort Knox :x

Unfortunately Lons, everything in NZ may seem rosy, as in England of 50 years ago, but as far as burglary goes, NZ has the highest rates for burglary per head of population in the civilised world. No idea why that is, just a useless stat I picked up (Useless unless you are a Kiwi) I have no idea Burglary rates for Oz though

Yes I think the tints were being worn at the time although the real attraction was pace of life, lack of traffic and very nice people. (petrol at 78p didn't hurt either)!
I was also impressed by OZ. Spent 10 days in Sydney before moving North to Cairns and on to Brisbane and Noosa and compared to most of the UK cities I have visited and including my home city Newcastle, it felt very safe indeed as well as being clean.

I'm sure there must be no go areas but we wandered around at night without looking over our shoulders unlike Newcastle for instance.
 
Jake, you are right in that we don't live in the 'wild west' - whether there was a wild west is another discussion.

However:
The sentencing guidelines for this offence, the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment, indicate that usually when such serious injuries result from such an offence, a very long sentence of imprisonment of seven years or more should be imposed after a trial

However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice run its course, then the rule of law which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse. The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.

Perhaps the judge would like to look at the two sentences he chose to use.
1) life meaning a very long sentence of seven year or more
2) The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable

I think you'd find that to the vast majority of people in this country it is wholly unacceptable for life to mean anything other than life.
You could argue (probably not legally) as he was sentenced to life that when he was released he was legally dead - after all he had served a life sentence.

Seven years (or even 30 months in this case) is not a way of showing that 'such conduct is criminal and unacceptable'. I'd suggest that it is actually showing that the law is completely and utterly incapable of operating in these circumstances and what happened was pretty much acceptable to the society which the law is duty bound to protect thus you get a slap on the wrist.
 
Jake":31l8n40p said:
I came across this which is quite interesting

<snip>

Bearing in mind that the sentence was reduced yet further by the Court of Appeal that all seems quite reasonable to me.

Y'all going to have to get used to the notion that we don't live in the Wild West you know.[/b]
While I agree with many (not all) of the things being said about what we 'would' do in such circumstances reading this has just changed the opinion I had of this case from what I knew from newspaper reports.

My only comment would be that if only more Judges were as sensible and considered as this one then we wouldn't be having this discussion because we would all have confidence in the justice system.

Having been broken into in May 2006 and coming downstairs at around 3am to be confronted by a bloke in my living room and another in my kitchen and chasing them out of my house and down the street I can honestly say I don't know what I would have done had I caught either.

The thing that stopped me, milliseconds before realising that I was naked with no shoes on chasing two blokes down my street :shock: , was that my wife was still in the house and I wasn't certain that there were no more of them in the house still!!!

I legged it back and luckily she was fine. Now I am not a violent man, but I have been a very successful full contact TaeKwonDo champion as a tenager and trained for years with boxers at Champs Camp in Moss Side (purely for fitness, I never faught other than sparring) and can handle myself if need be. I can honestly say that I have never been as furious as that night and cannot say for certain what I would have done had I caught the one that I got within 5 yards of.

To be honest looking back on it now I am glad I didn't because there's a fair chance there would be one of those reports up on the web with my name on it...
 
I would imagine the jury found that a very difficult case to reach a desicion on. For me the key fact that swings it to guilty is the involvement of Tokeer. I don't know the full details but it seems Munir went and got Tokeer before pursuing and cornering Salem. If Munir had just chased him out the house, caught him and given him a good kicking I could undertand a not guilty verdict but this smacked of revenge.

All in all I think justice has been served. The original sentences were perhaps a little heavy but they were always going to be reduced on appeal anyway.
 
big soft moose":1n0m4g7x said:
Actually I have been in a similar situation and do know what I did , and what i would do differently if (god forbid) it ever happened again

when I was 19 my then girlfreind (and very near to being fiancee) was killed in a terrorist incident - what did i do about this , well apart from getting heavily into booze and substances and having a near breakdown, I actually did nothing ( Tho i did try to join the army as a squaddie (having been previously washed from POC before the incident occured) , they -quite propperly as i see now- wouldnt take me ) - but the guilt of doing nothing and not acting "as a man should" very nearly destroyed my life and it took me nearly ten years to get my head together and my life back on rack

therefore if anything similar happened to swimbo, and it is incredibly hard for me to even entertain the idea fior long enough to write this, i am quite certain that i would take retributive steps and i would do my utmost not to get caught in the act

Sorry to hear that BSM.
However, you were probably right not to even attempt to go after 'terrorists'. In the unlikely scenario that you could even find who it was and track them down, you would likely not have the skills to do anything about it.
Jumped up scroats on the street and terrorists aren't quite the same.

You shouldn't feel guilty about not taking on terrorists - some of them were (and likely still are) very very highly trained professionals.
 
jlawrence":123kxne8 said:
Jake, you are right in that we don't live in the 'wild west' - whether there was a wild west is another discussion.

However:
The sentencing guidelines for this offence, the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment, indicate that usually when such serious injuries result from such an offence, a very long sentence of imprisonment of seven years or more should be imposed after a trial

However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice run its course, then the rule of law which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse. The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.

Perhaps the judge would like to look at the two sentences he chose to use.
1) life meaning a very long sentence of seven year or more
2) The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable

I think you'd find that to the vast majority of people in this country it is wholly unacceptable for life to mean anything other than life.
You could argue (probably not legally) as he was sentenced to life that when he was released he was legally dead - after all he had served a life sentence.

Seven years (or even 30 months in this case) is not a way of showing that 'such conduct is criminal and unacceptable'. I'd suggest that it is actually showing that the law is completely and utterly incapable of operating in these circumstances and what happened was pretty much acceptable to the society which the law is duty bound to protect thus you get a slap on the wrist.
I don't want to be picky, but re-read the sentence. I think you have misread it. What it actually says is

The sentencing guidelines for this offence, the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment,

indicate that usually when such serious injuries result from such an offence, a very long sentence of imprisonment of seven years or more...

I'm just being pedantic but it does look like you've picked the words that back up your argument.

The judge also said this

It is somewhat ironic that by reason of the head injuries inflicted upon him he was unfit to plead and could not be sentenced to serve the very long period of imprisonment which would otherwise have been imposed upon him.
Which says to me that this judge would have given the guy what he deserved.

I don't disagree with many of your sentiments but at the end of the day 4 blokes caught up with one who had commited a terrible crime against his family and admittedly deserved a thorough kicking, but nearly beat the bloke to death. If that is allowed to happen it will only be a matter of time before it happens to an innocent person (maybe even someone you know) and the lawyers manage to get the killers off by using this defence.
 
TrimTheKing":3d97arpe said:
My only comment would be that if only more Judges were as sensible and considered as this one then we wouldn't be having this discussion because we would all have confidence in the justice system

I suspect most are. How often do you actually read their judgments (or in this case, sentencing remarks)?

Reading this changed your mind from what had presumably been formed by press and media coverage. It's very often the case that the media either misunderstand or more likely purposefully distort things to fit their agenda. Working everyone up into a lather about the country going to the dogs earns money (and influences political perceptions).
 
Back
Top