# Personal Protection



## gromett (May 9, 2005)

Someone in my town was stabbed last night, even in a small market town this is becoming more and more common. I was looking for a stab vest out of curiosity to see how much they cost and what they looked like, weighed etc. While I was checking this out I found this.

http://www.stoppa.co.uk/acatalog/Click_Here_FOr_UK_Legal_Self_Defence_Sprays.html

Its a UK legal spray, it is slimy and sticky and has UV dye in it. This allows you time to escape and will allow the police to ID the attacker for days after the attack.

This company also does a range of ballistic and stab vests/T-shirts etc that look rather handy. I am going to buy one of the sprays for when I am out in the Van as a just in case measure.

I am considering one of the T-shirts for when I am out in town just to be on the safe side 

Just thought I would pass this companies details on as I was suprised at how cheap they were and thought it may be of interest to those going to spain or traveling solo.

Cheers
Karl


----------



## ksebruce (Nov 5, 2006)

A sad reflection of our society when people start to think along these lines.


----------



## 98452 (Apr 2, 2006)

Was reading in the paper the other day how they know the best places to stab you.

Side of the upper leg seems deadly.

Seems at present to mainly be a black gang type issue at the moment but for how long......................................................................?


----------



## tonyt (May 25, 2005)

I know it's illegal in this country but I don't care - my life and my wife's life are higher on my priority list than conforming with a piece of pc legislature.

I carry a cs spray cannister in the mh cab.
Readily available over the counter in France.


----------



## gromett (May 9, 2005)

TonyT, Can't fault you to be honest. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

I didn't know it was legal in France. Is it only the UK that it is illegal?

Karl


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Hi I agree, but spraying CS gas in a M/H is going to leave you in as much trouble as the intruders, maybe more as I believe it clings to walls and furniture.

Olley


----------



## zulurita (May 9, 2005)

We have a pepper spray that we bought in Germany last year before going to Eastern Europe. Probably need it more in UK than elsewhere by the sounds of things


----------



## TinaGlenn (Jul 7, 2006)

I wouldnt have CS gas in the wendy house, but there are a couple of small cans of very cheap and nasty hairspray one at the back and one at the front "just in case" nothing illegal in carrying that around and a squirt of that to the eyes and face would give a similar effect and give a would be attacker or intruder something to think about.

Tina H.


----------



## Detourer (May 9, 2005)

I think CS gas is classified under section 5 of the firearms act and as such possesion attracts a mandatory min prison sentence..... :roll:


----------



## maddie (Jan 4, 2006)

Hi I belive it gets a min 5 yrs! if you get caught! it's a sad thing that protecting one's self gets you in more trouble than the slime ball who breaks into your van.Last year we went away leaving my new van on the drive (half made) and 3 kids 2 girls 1 boy broke into it through the wc hatcth no wc fitted yet.They got caught by my neighbour who held them till police came and gave lad a good thump (not hard enough) for resisting arrest-horay-they broke my new £350 window got caught but only got a caution for resiting arrest, nothing about breaking & entering.
terry


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Hi Maddie, but thats not quite the same theme, though I would have clouted them myself.
Well I must admit that I am very surprised at the comments on this, will you all now consider hiring minders when you go into town after 7pm as well.Or am i still living in a more moderate part of the country.Stab vests, gas sprays,have worked as a cabby for over 30 years in the busiest town on the south coast, never had to even consider that.
My friends over the pond have told me that they do carry an extra wallet to hand over if confronted.

maybe I am still waring the rose tinted glasses.

cabby.


----------



## gromett (May 9, 2005)

I still feel (relatively) safe in my own town but there have been 3 stabbing incidents in neighboring villages including the one last night. I only need to be unlucky once. Am only considering the stab t-shirt for friday and Saturday nights when the town is packed with drunks having fun (me included)

In france I feel totally safe and wouldn't consider the need for these items.
However the spray is non toxic and I will get it purely so I don't have to thump the buggers over the head with whatever happens to be by my bed at the time they break in.

Karl


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Here's my tuppence worth. I really do strongly suggest that anyone carrying CS or Pepper spray in the UK gets rid of it immediately. Possession of it is enough for a Firearms Act arrest, and I can assure you that there is no "reasonable excuse" defence. They are prohibited articles as defined in the legislation, which makes them far more than simply offensive weapons, which they also are.

I also suggest that you be extremely careful having or using any such thing abroad. Whilst of course I fully understand why people want to carry them, the argument still is valid about causing escalation, and that is the reason why the Police here in the UK are not routinely armed. I am not making the case for the argument, simply saying that it's an arguable point, and if you confront a felon and use a weapon of any sort against him, you run the very real risk of an escalated response which you will then not be able to control.

My advice:-

1. Do not post here about possession of illegal weapons - you already have stated publicly you are committing a serious offence and already are liable to arrest
2. Do not possess any weapon illegally
3. Do not carry them abroad
4. Do not underestimate the response you will most likely get if you use a weapon against someone with criminal intent

Dougie.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Having now read the advert on Stoppa's website, it's also worth noting another point.

I'm quite sure this product is not prescribed by the Secretary of State as per CS Spray etc., but please - consider the definition of Offensive Weapon:-

'Offensive weapon' is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.

As we get drummed into us at training, there are three elements.
1) Made
2) Adapted
3) Intended

So - is it
*made* for use to cause injury? Possibly
*adapted* for use to cause injury? No
*intended* for use to cause injury? Even more possibly

It will not be enough to argue that "it said on the advert it was legal, and anyway I only wanted it to defend myself" if you use it and are as a result arrested either for assault, possession of an offensive weapon, or more likely both. If I found you with this item in the street, I would have grounds to arrest you for possession of an offensive weapon on the basis of my having reasonable grounds to suspect that you intended it to cause injury, regardless of what you felt.

Please be very, very careful.

Dougie.


----------



## 98452 (Apr 2, 2006)

We were at Oakdene Shorefeild near Ringwood and one of their permanent resident objected to our big dogs who were not let off the lead till the entrance to the forest.

Anyway one evening the crazy bitch went to mace our dogs and my wife anyway she started spraying at which point my wife (superwoman) grabbed the can from her and let her have it full face.

After cleaning Irina's eyes and the dogs we went to the management to complain and they explained she (the nutter) had called the Police saving us doing it. Her calling the police went badly wrong for her as other people had been attacked before but she alway manage to go off and hide the can but the time my wife had taken it from her.

She was arrested and on our evidence she was charged with assault.

This stuff is very dangerous.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

RR said:


> She was arrested and on our evidence she was charged with assault. This stuff is very dangerous.


So was the woman, by all accounts (I had to read your post twice to establish who you were referring to as the bitch, but I wasn't wrong.....).

This is a perfect example of my above two points.

Dougie.


----------



## 98452 (Apr 2, 2006)

asprn said:


> RR said:
> 
> 
> > She was arrested and on our evidence she was charged with assault. This stuff is very dangerous.
> ...


Sorry my post isn't that clear but I am extremely emotive about the incident as it happened quite a distance from where I was so unable to help my wife.

Yes a resident attacked Irina and the dogs (turns out she had been a regular problem to the Shorefields staff)

I even had the bloody stuff in my eye after cleaning the dogs eyes out as it gets everywhere.

BTW:- the can she had did not operate like how you see the Police's demonstration as this turned from a liquid jet into a mist so goes everywhere.


----------



## tonyt (May 25, 2005)

Dougie

Thanks for those words of warning.

However, I will retain the absolute right to DEFEND myself and my family from any threatened attack that I perceive and these days the use of hands and feet to make such a defence are likely to have little effect on an armed attacker.

Those items that I choose to have with me are therefore defensive and not offensive - regardsless of what anybody else thinks.

As I said at the beginning - I really don't care anymore - I will not have street scum taking anything from me without a fight.


----------



## 98452 (Apr 2, 2006)

Best carry a gun then as they are much more efficient than mace :wink:


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

tonyt said:


> I will retain the absolute right to DEFEND myself and my family from any threatened attack that I perceive and these days the use of hands and feet to make such a defence are likely to have little effect on an armed attacker.
> 
> Those items that I choose to have with me are therefore defensive and not offensive - regardsless of what anybody else thinks.


I quite understand, really. You still have the right to decide. What you do not have however is a defence in law, and you will have to answer to that law in the guise of Magistrates or a Crown Court judge.

From a great deal of experience of dealing with attackers - unarmed and armed - unless you have the capabilty (physical ability/training/equipment) to overpower the attacker, you are highly likely to escalate his attack on you beyond what you can control. A squirt of CS or Pepper Spray by itself will not overpower most people - it may give you a temporary window of opportunity to use other means to control them, or escape.

Please though - don't be under the illusion that just because you consider them purely defensive, changes your liability to arrest and conviction. I would not like to hear of that on this forum under any circumstances.

Dougie.


----------



## gromett (May 9, 2005)

This is why I mentioned the stoppa spray, it is non toxic, it is not an irritant. 
It is not banned like cs and pepper spray are and I feel happy carrying it in my vehicle.

asprn
Your arguments regarding intent are well taken but I don't feel that I would be at risk of prosecution as I will not be carrying it round town with me. I never act agressively and am not routinely stopped by the police for checks.
The can will remain unmodified and won't be waved around in public. It is purely there so that if someone breaks into my van it gives me another option . If I do get arrested for carrying it, I will defend my self fully and throw all my resources at it.

I have a friend who carries a knife now when he goes to our local because he was harrassed by two doberman. He reported this to the police who's response was "oh, they must have escaped". Being harrassed by two doberman at 12:30 am is not a pleasant experience I am sure and the polices reaction was negligent. He wrote a letter to the chief inspector to complain stating that if no action was taken he would be writing a letter to the local paper. I thought that was a little weak myself but the reaction was suprising. He was told he was over reacting....

Anyway my point is I bollocked my friend saying that he was wrong to carry a knife as he seriously runs the risk of being arrested or worse if he is attacked he may kill someone in the heat of the moment.

I don't agree with breaking the law, but as Voltaire said.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I would extend this to self defense.

TonyT
If you were to get into an argument with your neighbors for example and were to use it to threaten them then I would throw you in jail for the 5 years.

The problem with these CS and pepper sprays is that they can used in violent crimes, such as muggings, assaults etc. If the government allowed them to be used for personal protection there would be loads of court cases where it would be hard to tell if it was self defense or not. I can understand the logic behind banning them.

Until the law and the police are 100% behind the victims of crime and show zero tolerance to any criminal act there will always be people who feel the need to break the law to protect themselves and more importantly their own family. I don't personally think it is a good idea to possess these as the law is not currently on your side but I don't judge you for wanting to protect your family.

Personally, when I am out in the Van I always ensure that I have something close to hand that can be used to defend myself. This item must not be out of place and it must be legal. for example I wouldn't put a butchers knife next to my bed. However in my old van the table next to my bed was used for slicing bread so leaving a bread knife there next to the bread would not be an unrealistic option. I haven't done that as I don't think knives are a suitable weapon when you are half asleep but it is a good example.

In a perfect world I wouldn't need to consider my defense options but as we all know it is not perfect. We have to find a suitable way to defend ourselves without putting ourselves in jeapordy of being arrested.

On a slightly different subject check this article out. Just shows what a JackAss the law is. I found it a very interesting and in parts amusing article.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1625714.ece

Karl


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

gromett said:


> I don't feel that I would be at risk of prosecution as I will not be carrying it round town with me. I never act agressively and am not routinely stopped by the police for checks.


I agree that you reduce the risk of prosecution by not carrying it around town. That though is purely based on the reduced likeliehood of being found with it, rather than being more acceptable in law.



gromett said:


> The can will remain unmodified and won't be waved around in public. It is purely there so that if someone breaks into my van it gives me another option . If I do get arrested for carrying it, I will defend my self fully and throw all my resources at it.


You are at least quite clear regarding the probable outcome. As long as you (and anyone else) have properly understood the legislation and assessed the consequences of gaining a conviction which you will carry with you for the rest of your life, then at least you're making an informed decision, which - as you appropriately quote Voltaire - you have the right to make.

Please also give proper consideration to the point of causing escalation. Crims are usually more familar with violence than law-abiding people, and strangely enough, most crims only use reasonable force. To present a crim with an escalated level of violence will most likely provoke a cornered-animal reaction. It's generally better to leave a bridge open over which he can retreat, unless you know for sure you can control the situation no matter how high the level of violence goes.

Nice to hear a well-reasoned argument for a change.

Dougie.


----------



## 97993 (Mar 5, 2006)

> most crims only use reasonable force


and you were doing so well!!!! :?


----------



## bigfoot (May 16, 2005)

I have the ultimate a 6cell Maglite!!


----------



## 101405 (Oct 15, 2006)

*self protection*

I was brought up in liverpool in the late forties early fities and a teenager sixties. cant ever remember things being as bad. if on a night out you got into trouble it was in the back of a landrover on the floor and 6 coppers on top of you. and until I moved to spain its still a good place to have a night out. The police have a big presence on the city steets 24hrs and the cars are yellow for hi vis, Chief Con is top guy. but its a city that gives you repect . but on the whole the uk is still tops. believe me France and Spain and Germany might seem nice on holiday but lots of places you wont stay around long . if your english they think you are a soft touch and loaded? whats mi proteccion. A baseball bat. and it hurts. some tips for Travellers. Dont stop unless its a uniformed Cop/Guadia, because the spanish would not tell you .you had a flat tyre? anyone that stops and asks you directions is suspect! lock the doors. get the bat out!! and stop giving tips. the staff in bars ect are well paid . and never ever say your sorry to spanish man! why? because he wont say it to you.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Geo said:


> > most crims only use reasonable force
> 
> 
> and you were doing so well!!!! :?


I take it from your slightly-oblique comment that you don't agree. It's true nevertheless. *Most* crims are not violent - another way of putting it is most crime in the UK does not contain violence; by that, I mean physical, as this is the topic under discussion here.

Most crims are cowards, small-brained, unimaginative. I don't say this out of sarcasm, simply out of both personal experience and noted fact by the law enforcement fraternity. That's why if you happen to confront a burglar in your house, he will bolt, sometimes defecating himself in the process. If however you corner him and present him with physical violence, he will do one of two natural things - fight you or submit. It's such an important point that I'll say it yet again - unless you are overwhelmingly confident you can control the situation (i.e. win), do not take a weapon to him. Easier said than done, yes - but there is always a moment of decision before acting, which is what you will be called to account on should things go horribly wrong.

Dougie.


----------



## tonyt (May 25, 2005)

asprn said:


> .......... It's such an important point that I'll say it yet again - unless you are overwhelmingly confident you can control the situation (i.e. win), do not take a weapon to him..........
> 
> asprn


Whether "overwhelmingly confident" or not, I suspect that most householders, if confronted with a theiving skunt inside their house, would want to do the guy some damage not wave him goodbye and wish him a safe journey.

Sometimes you just have to take a stand regardless of the consequences.

Too many victims are treated as criminals and too many criminals as victims.

Our laws and the police attitude are woefully inadequate in safeguarding and supporting the vast majority of the population.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't get it Tony, first you admit to having a 'weapon' inside your van that could get you a prison sentence then when someone soberly explains the easier way out of the confrontration you support the idea of getting your retaliation in. Then you say its about the attitude of the police! The latest round of knife stabbings illustrate my point knives don't give protection they just raise the stakes - knives BTW are probably the worse form of defence of all, you can't tell when you use it if it likely to cause a nick or kill someone, a few mm either way apparently make all the difference 

I used to see this slogan every day 'If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem'.

Regards Frank


----------



## tonyt (May 25, 2005)

Frank - you do it your way and I'll do it mine.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

tonyt said:


> Our laws and the police attitude are woefully inadequate in safeguarding and supporting the vast majority of the population.


Parliament - on our behalf - make the laws. We vote parliament in. We therefore consent to the laws. That's how democracy works as I'm sure you well know, and when laws become inappropriate or inadequate, only you and I can change them by letting our Members of Parliament know, firstly by contacting them over & over again if necessary, then by voting them out if they don't listen.

The Police attitude matters little. We are but pawns in the game controlled by the Masters. It's true - this isn't abdication of responsibility. If I am told, "Patrol here and concentrate on THIS type of matter" (say, anti-social behaviour), then I must. If I say, "I don't think so. That's not terribly important. What's important is THIS" (say, theft of diesel from farms), I will be held to account. This is just as true further up the scale. When the Home Office issue directives to Chief Constables, they must be adhered to. Chiefs cannot simply say, "I don't agree with that" (they can think it...) - they must obey. If they do not, they will be visiting London swiftly, and will find their funding cut by a significant amount next year. That is the way it works. It's called Politics. Police work is absolutely, completely and totally stuffed full of it. To believe that individual officers, or individual divisions, or individual Chief Constables, can develop their own "attitude" and do what their own communities really want, is naive and wrong. Not unreasonable, but naive and wrong. The vast majority of the population to whom you refer, have absolutely no idea of the utter and abject frustration felt *most of the time* by the rank & file serving Police officer, due to under-resourcing, Political Correctness, and un-informed prioritising by people who have virtually no contact with the real-world problems experiences by that vast majority.

Read this blog by "David Copperfield" - not his real name, but a real PC. He tells it like it really, really is. I'm not eliciting sympathy here. Some understanding though would be a start though, as that is usually the pre-cursor to change.

Also see this blog - worth reading.

** UPDATE ** I've just read with dismay that DC Johnno Hills of the second blog above has resigned this weekend.  Another hard-working officer down the pan due to exactly what I've said above.

Dougie.


----------



## ksebruce (Nov 5, 2006)

[Chiefs cannot simply say, "I don't agree with that" (they can think it...) - they must obey. If they do not, they will be visiting London swiftly]

Doesn't seem to apply to the "speedophile"


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

ksebruce said:


> [Chiefs cannot simply say, "I don't agree with that" (they can think it...) - they must obey. If they do not, they will be visiting London swiftly]
> 
> Doesn't seem to apply to the "speedophile"


It does apply to him. He's popular with all the wrong people.

Dougie.


----------



## tonyt (May 25, 2005)

asprn said:


> The vast majority of the population to whom you refer, have absolutely no idea of the utter and abject frustration felt *most of the time* by the rank & file serving Police officer, due to under-resourcing, Political Correctness, and un-informed prioritising by people who have virtually no contact with the real-world problems experiences by that vast majority.
> Dougie.


It's a job - just like any other job, you do it to earn a wage and the difficulties and frustrations encountered are no different to those in many other working environments - not unique to the police force.
They don't have to suffer "utter and abject frustration" - there are other careers out there. Many, many of us have changed jobs during our lifetime for various reasons so I don't have a very sympathetic ear to such "poor me" stories.


----------



## 98452 (Apr 2, 2006)

To be honest if stop and search was done to ANYONE the police suspected INCLUDING me and the crown prosecution service and the courts backed them up a lot of this crime would go rapidly down.

If you note recently it's younger members of the gangs doing the stabbing as the sentences if caught are lighter.

There are to many bleeding hearts out there caring for the rights of the criminals and not the victims (look at all this compensation given to criminals in jail :roll: )

While things remain the same these crimes will become more regularly and even more horrid.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

tonyt said:


> It's a job - just like any other job, you do it to earn a wage and the difficulties and frustrations encountered are no different to those in many other working environments - not unique to the police force.
> They don't have to suffer "utter and abject frustration" - there are other careers out there. Many, many of us have changed jobs during our lifetime for various reasons so I don't have a very sympathetic ear to such "poor me" stories.


You've ignored much of what I said, particularly, "I'm not eliciting sympathy here. Some understanding though would be a start". Yes, of course I can walk out the door and go work at Tescos. That is always an option, and you're quite right. The same is true for people who suffer similar issues - notably the Health Service, and Education.

Of course every job has its difficulties and frustrations. I'll tell you what though, mate. If you think policing is just like any other job, try understanding it first before making that assertion. I'll bet my bottom dollar that when you want Police assistance, you will expect something quite different to a plumber, and quite right too.

I'm not confident you'll understand what "vocation" really is, based on your point above. That however is the reason why the vast majority of people become Police officers, because they believe the role is far more than a job. If every conscientious officer walks out the door as you suggest, then the public - including you - will have the Police force it deserves.

As an addendum, here's an illustration of difficulty and frustration, which no-one normally ever gets to hear about apart from the crims' mates celebrating in the pub afterwards. A car failed to stop for Police last night - two people inside. It crashed into a garden with the Police car a little way behind it, and the two got out & ran round the car several times just as the officer got there. Both were well drunk. He was unable to say which was the driver, and each said the other was driving, so both were arrested. Both were more than 3 times over the limit, and were interviewed. Each stuck to his story, and the officer - as we must now do - phoned CPS to gain their permission to charge (officers generally no longer have that capability). CPS refused all charges, stating that the charging criteria had not been met ("We don't know who was driving").

We do know that one of them was driving - both admit that with their cross-accusations - and until relatively recently, both would have been charged & put before the Court, who would decide who to believe. Now, that does not happen. A call-centre lawyer at the end a phone with a computerised flow-chart decides, and in many cases, the decisions are utterly fatuous, as in this case.

What's the Police attitude to this incident? Abject frustration, demoralisation and yet more cynicism. What's the public attitude? Well, they generally don't get to hear about it as I've said. I guess it's easy to believe that "the Police let them go - they don't give a toss". Really? The fact that they were in custody from 02:15 hrs until 15:45 hrs, taking two operational Police officers off the road for hours and hours and hours, and walked out grinning & cocky as hell, doesn't seem to register.

It's not "poor me". It's "poor us" - you, me and everyone else in the country who generally haven't got a clue why social issues and crime are why they are. I don't want anyone's sympathy. I do want people's understanding though, not for my sake, but for yours.

Dougie.


----------



## gromett (May 9, 2005)

One of my good friends is a Police seargent. He has done the high speed pursuit stuff, fire arms amongst other specialist training. He is very right wing in his attitudes and is what I would want in my police "Force" (service).

He is constantly frustrated by the guidance and burocracy handed down from above. If the police were left to police the locality as locals needs dictated we would not only have a better force but happier bobbies.

I had a period just over a year ago where my house was being constantly attacked by local hooligans, eggs on my house and van. Stones and sticks thrown at doors and windows etc etc. It was every weekend thur, fri, sat and sunday night after 12am till 4am.

The police couldn't do anything because no actual damage was done so they couldn't be arrested for criminal damage. If I could prove it was the same kids each time and it was sustained they could be arrested for harrassment. I even had their names and address's and cctv footage of their last attacks. I was advised not to restrain them as I would be arrested for assault.

When I was 17 I was constantly stopped by the police if I was out at that hour asking my name, address, where I was going and where I had come from. I am now lucky to see a copper from one month to the next yet we have more of them than ever if you are to believe the government.

I don't blame the police, I blame the management and dictats issued from above.

Let the local police force decide their own priorities, cut down the paper work for them big time. Look out for instances like described in asprn last post and modify the law so that both idiots are arrested and charged equally. Put Bobbies back on the beat to deter crime and form relationships with locals.
Allow Police to stop and search anyone at anytime. I would be happy to pay the price of 5 minutes to answer a few questions if it meant more coppers patroling my area regularly after hours. localise policing instead of centralising it. 

The police have my full support (until one of them arrests me for having the stoppa spray in my vehicle lol) If TonyT wants to carry the Spray I understand, don't agree but won't criticise. I don't recommend using a knife as a means of defence as it is too easy to either kill or accidentally injure yourself in the struggle.

Anyway Rant over.

Quick question for asprn: Would you arrest me for having that spray in the vehicle?

Karl


----------



## mangothemadmonk (Aug 6, 2006)

To my mind the judicial system is a farce. When the criminal has more rights than the victim then the decent law abiding citizen has lost and doesn't stand a chance.

"The Law sir is an arse" 

Stop the do-gooders and the political correctness brigade and lets get back to family values and morals. Lets start with please and thank you!! When did you hear one of those from a young person? (No I am not taring all young people)

Toughen up on crime. Let the Police police. Get them out of the office and back on the streets. Give them laws which say to the criminal "If you break these laws you will pay for your crime" But most of all make the sentence fit the crime. 

Why should a person get off early for being good in prison?? They should have been good on the outside. No early releases, make them work their full sentence. 

Lets get judges on the bench with a spine. Lets untie their bound hands from a judicial system that has more rubbish in it than the local refuse dump!!

But no doubt I will be wrong...............

Johnny F


----------



## maddie (Jan 4, 2006)

Hi all, this may be off topic but here goes
There are both good and bad,police,some use common sense(the bad don't agree with me LOL)I fall in mostly with mangothemadmonk!

gromett you cannot expect asprn (he must be a common sense one hes a member on hre) to answer this so everyone can see,but i suspect he would come down on your side on a personal level LOL
I quite like the other use for my 4 cell maglite(2 uses)and hairspray though.
Terry


----------



## 98452 (Apr 2, 2006)

Dougie has just highlighted how the Police look to be picking on Joe Public because he will tell the truth and pay for his crime.

i.e. if caught under the influence actually be prosecuted.

Then theres this government obsession with statistics/targets (must make doing your job in a sensible manor very difficult)

We are all specialist in our own fields so hold knowledge about the subject they talk of others don't have.


----------



## mangothemadmonk (Aug 6, 2006)

RR said:


> Then theres this government obsession with statistics/targets


Yeh, untruthful statistics and unachievable targets. Sounds like my firm!

Johnny F


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

gromett said:


> Let the local police force decide their own priorities, cut down the paper work for them big time.


Yes please.



gromett said:


> Look out for instances like described in asprn last post and modify the law so that both idiots are arrested and charged equally


It's not the legislation that was at fault yesterday - the law is there, and there are Stated Cases about both being correctly put before the Court. Everything above a certain charging level, filters through CPS now BEFORE charging, and that level ain't very high (a Sergeant can still authorise minor charges, but that is set to change too). Many, many decisions are taken by non-Police personnel (Civil Servants) who are primarily budget-driven - they are not sworn Peace officers who have taken an oath to prevent and detect crime, and therefore do not primarily consider anything other than what they're paid to do (keep within budget). This is equally true of CPS lawyers, who have been issued with higher charging standards by HM Gov, primarily to reduce workload levels on the Criminal Justice System (& therefore costs). Yesterday's case is a perfect example.



gromett said:


> Put Bobbies back on the beat to deter crime and form relationships with locals.


HM Gov say they're doing that, with Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). Their training, equipment and most importantly powers, are very limited. The reassurance con trick does work though in the main - a yellow jacket is a yellow jacket. They are not however Bobbies, although they may be in 3-5 years, for half the price.



gromett said:


> The police have my full support (until one of them arrests me for having the stoppa spray in my vehicle lol)


 Just mention my name (JOKE - DON'T EVEN THING ABOUT IT 8O )



gromett said:


> Would you arrest me for having that spray in the vehicle?


Good question, well presented. It's chiefly the content which either makes it an Offensive Weapon or not. CS is a proscribed content, but this goo obviously isn't. It would depend on the chemical content ultimately, but at the roadside, I would probably make limited enquiries via radio at the time, then not make much progress due to lack of information. Not knowing anything about it would make me hesitate to arrest you, as I clearly have to have reasonable grounds to do so. I would probably seize the container, confirm your details, report you for any offences that might subsequently be disclosed, and make enquiries. On the other hand, if I found that you'd used it and the "victim" alleged an injury (sore eye, bad taste in mouth, severe psychological trauma, whatever), I would be duty-bound to investigate it. Always comes back to Reasonable Force. Put it this way. You'd never get arrested for carrying a MagLite and a tin of hairspray (unless maybe you were bald like me...). 



RR said:


> Then theres this government obsession with statistics/targets


Serpently. This is at the heart of ****-poor Police practice (alliteration not intended). The Masters must be obeyed. Period.



mangothemadmonk said:


> Stop the do-gooders and the political correctness brigade and lets get back to family values and morals


If you can bottle that & sell it, you'll make a fortune, sir. Law Enforcement practices are chock-full of official Political Correctness, i.e. things which stop me doing my job sensibly, fairly and justly. Chock-full. As for family values, I'm not arguing with you, but you have to specify what you mean. 2007 Family Values are what they are - mostly there due to previous generations' failures. I joined the Police to make the world a better place (or even my little bit of). I am continually prevented from doing so by a) the very people who complain to Police about things ("I'm not giving you a statement, mate - I don't want the hassle of Court & all that - can't you just sort it out?") and b) the Criminal Justice System itself.

Dougie.


----------



## tonyt (May 25, 2005)

My closing comment on Personal protection:

So you’re at home in bed with your wife, the kids are in the bedroom next door and you are woken by a strange sound. You get up and quietly go into the lounge where you find a bloke with your laptop under his arm – what happens next? You make him a cup of tea and listen to his life story or you get stuck in and sort him out before he has a chance to escape? – I know what I would do! - and I accept that I may get beaten up in the process! - and if I subsequently get done for assault then so be it.


----------



## bill (May 10, 2005)

asprn

You have a pm, I hope.

bill


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

tonyt said:


> My closing comment on Personal protection:
> 
> So you're at home in bed with your wife, the kids are in the bedroom next door and you are woken by a strange sound. You get up and quietly go into the lounge where you find a bloke with your laptop under his arm - what happens next? You make him a cup of tea and listen to his life story or you get stuck in and sort him out before he has a chance to escape? - I know what I would do! - and I accept that I may get beaten up in the process! - and if I subsequently get done for assault then so be it.


Tony,

I've already said I respect your right to choose, and I do. You will not be judged by me but by the law which has been made by our elected representatives. That law states that you can only use reasonable force to protect yourself or others, or detain the perpetrator. You must do as you see fit. As I say, it won't be me who judges you, or nurses you, or buries you. 

Dougie.


----------



## 98585 (Apr 9, 2006)

tonyt said:


> I know it's illegal in this country but I don't care - my life and my wife's life are higher on my priority list than conforming with a piece of pc legislature.
> 
> I carry a cs spray cannister in the mh cab.
> Readily available over the counter in France.


Most of the over the counter CS Sprays that you can buy in France are absolute pants. I KNOW that they WILL NOT stop a determined attacker, they are probably as effective as WD40 or Hairsray which are both next to useless also. There are far better weapons readily available in a MH, weapons that have legitimate other (exc)uses, these include knives and maglites and cricket bats. For example if the police or customs for whatever reason find a 17inch blade in your van, a wild camper can explain that he uses his machete to cut firewood when in the wildernes, and you "might" get away with it, but CS spray has no other use, it is considered a offensive weapon, even if in reality it is a weak one. Only a fool would rely soley upon over the counter gas it to defend his/her family when there are so many more legal options.

The very best defence, is awareness I know where you can get a very good book that describes this in great detail....


----------



## Waggy (Jan 15, 2006)

I can understand Dougie's frustrations but as always there is a balance to be drawn between Police powers and the rights of the individual. The balance has now shifted too far in favour of the criminal since the days of the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6

In Dougies example I doubt if it was ever the case that both miscreants would be stood up side by side in the same court to decide which one was guilty There must be proof of guilt against the individual and we must never lose the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' no matter how unpalatable the outcome in some situations

Graham


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Waggy said:


> In Dougies example I doubt if it was ever the case that both miscreants would be stood up side by side in the same court to decide which one was guilty


Hi Graham,

Quite wrong, I'm afraid.  It has been standard practice in cases where a certain standard of evidence is reached that one or the other was driving. This was not in dispute last night - both parties admitted one of them was driving, and neither alleged it was a mystery man who ran off (another common tactic).

Each individual has the protection of assumed innocence in Court, but the balance shifted against the defendant a few years ago where it "may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court". The Court can now draw inference from No Comment, for example, or from failing to account for your actions.

I have personally seen around a dozen such cases over the years where both - or indeed several - people have been charged. In most cases, they see sense (usually after legal advice where they're told their game will not wash in Court) and one pleads guilty. In the remainder, there was a conviction in every case, and in two of these, both defendants were convicted, as the Magistrates considered there was enough evidence to do so (the Bottom Line).

Dougie.


----------



## Ginamo (Sep 5, 2006)

Bit off topic but I can't help feeling that this gentleman albeit American has some good ideas.

Just as teachers in schools have no disiplinary power to speak of, the prison system in the UK doesn't seem to offer much disincentive to the criminal population.

Gina 

Anyone know Tony Blair's email?






TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO, HE IS THE MARICOPA
COUNTY SHERIFF( ARIZONA ) AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER
AGAIN.

These are some of the reasons why:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio created the "tent city jail" to save Arizona from
spending tens of million of dollars on another expensive prison complex.

He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for
them.

He banned smoking and porno magazines in the jails, and took away their
weightlifting equipment and cut off all but "G" movies. He says:
"they're in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault 
innocent people when they leave."

He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and
city projects and save taxpayer's money.

Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for
discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order
that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but
only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel.

When asked why the weather channel he replied: "so these morons will
know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs."

He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore
a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them,
"This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."

He also bought the Newt Gingrich lecture series on US history that he
pipes nto the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by
a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series that actually
tells the truth for a change would be welcome and that it might even explain
why 95% of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees
just set a new record for June 2nd), the Associated Press reports: About
2,000 inmates living in a barbed- wire-surrounded tent encampment at the
Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their
government-issued pink boxer shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were chatting in
the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees. "This is hell. It feels
like we live in a furnace," said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2 
years with 10 more to go. "It's inhumane."

Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna
sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. "Criminals should be punished for their
crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for parole, only to go out and commit
more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and
enjoy things many taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves."

Wednesday he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in
the tents: "It's between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are
living in tents too, and they have to walk all day in the sun, wearing full 
battle gear and get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so
shut your damned mouths!"

Way to go, Sheriff! If all prisons were like yours there would be a lot
less crime and we would not be in the current position of running out of
prison spaces. 

.


----------



## Waggy (Jan 15, 2006)

Hi Dougie

Interesting to note what you say. Are you referring to the Scottish Courts? I am wondering if the situation is different south of the border. In the more serious cases before the Crown Court I would have thought that each defendant would have his own legal representation 

Graham


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Waggy said:


> Hi Dougie
> Interesting to note what you say. Are you referring to the Scottish Courts? I am wondering if the situation is different south of the border. In the more serious cases before the Crown Court I would have thought that each defendant would have his own legal representation
> Graham


Hi Graham,

No, Magistrates Courts. I live & work in England (and I didn't say "unfortunately" ).

Legal representation is available in every level of court in the British Isles, although legal aid is not for non-recordable offences such as minor Road Traffic (you have to pay for a Brief yourself). Drink/Drive is a recordable offence.

Dougie.


----------



## Waggy (Jan 15, 2006)

Thanks for clarifying this Dougie

Graham


----------



## jonnowycombe (Mar 2, 2007)

I WARN YOU ALL NOW CARRYING OR USING CS SPRAY CARRIES THE SAME PUNISHMENT AS CARRYING A KNIFE.

BRINGING CS SPRAY INTO THE UK FROM ABROAD IS THE SAME OFFENSE AS BRINGING BACK A KNIFE - THATS 4 YEARS IN PRISON.

I agree with your reasons but do not think that you are within the law because you ARE a law abiding citizen and you would only ever use it in an emergency - customs will prosecute and a magistrate has no choice.

Sadly we are soft targets for the law and if you wont carry a 12" carving knife then dont carry CS spray. Use a knife and claim it was to hand and self defense...

We live in a dreadful society and as someone who uses his motorhome on his own regularly I suggest your culinary skills require a selection of boning, peeling and gutting knives, not a crossbow, air gun or CS spray.

Jon - Qualified Front Line security operative from the SIA


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

jonnowycombe said:


> Use a knife and claim it was to hand and self defense...





jonnowycombe said:


> Jon - Qualified Front Line security operative from the SIA


Not only do you do your profession a great disservice, but you're committing a criminal offence by publicly inciting people to do the same. I recommend that you reconsider encouraging anyone to use a knife - it's been a while since I read anything quite so irresponsible.

Dougie.


----------



## billym (Dec 17, 2005)

I am with Asprn all the way on this one, I just wish I could write such reasoned argument so eloquently.

On a personal note, I have experienced CS gas in a very confined space, A cab of a JCB and it is not pleasant. I actually thought that the person to whom the gas was directed was dead, thankfully not. I also witnessed the first gassing of a person by the police on the UK mainland. This was on an international rugby league player and it took three canisters to put him down. 

So ... CS gas is illegal. Do not use it .If you do, do not use it in a confined space and if you do, do not just presume it will make your problem go away.


----------



## 98452 (Apr 2, 2006)

ASPRN Dougie,

I bet you wished you had never responded in the first place now :roll: :roll: 

You have kepted your cool all the way through this debate and only tried to advise people of their legal position yet most of your postings have been dissected and turned around time after time :roll: 

As an officer of the law and someone who actually know what they are talking about I think I must thank you for your input on this hot topic.

If we ever meet up would love to buy you a beer :wink:


----------



## kijana (May 1, 2005)

Billym, ISTR your preferred weapon of choice is a well-aimed rock. . .


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

RR said:


> I bet you wished you had never responded in the first place now


I'm fine with it all. There are more problems talked about in the world than solutions, and I'm paid to try & solve problems (I don't say I always succeed, for sure).



RR said:


> You have kepted your cool all the way through this debate and only tried to advise people of their legal position yet most of your postings have been dissected and turned around time after time


Let facts speak for themselves. That way, if people don't accept what I'm saying, it isn't personal, and they will perhaps ultimately find the truth out another way.



RR said:


> As an officer of the law and someone who actually know what they are talking about I think I must thank you for your input on this hot topic


Thank you - that's much appreciated.



RR said:


> If we ever meet up would love to buy you a beer :wink:


Bribery, eh? Works for me. :hathat35:

Dougie.


----------



## jonnowycombe (Mar 2, 2007)

I dont encourage anyone to use a weapon - I have never and do not carry one. The biggest risk is someone was to use it against you. 

However a friend of mine was stabbed in the eye with a knife that a teeanger was carrying and tried to break into a car with. I would rather face fire with fire than die another statistic....

My own opinion. My advice really was do not carry offensive weapons like CS ever ever. I was hoping to keep people on the right side of the law.

jon


----------



## navman (May 10, 2005)

I have come it to this very late and as a cop too, would say to asprn...well done mate


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

jonnowycombe said:


> I dont encourage anyone to use a weapon - I have never and do not carry one. The biggest risk is someone was to use it against you


Good stuff.



jonnowycombe said:


> My own opinion. My advice really was do not carry offensive weapons like CS ever ever. I was hoping to keep people on the right side of the law.


Thanks for clarifying, and for your reasoned PM.

Dougie.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

billym said:


> I actually thought that the person to whom the gas was directed was dead, thankfully not.


Why did you spray an apparently-dead person with CS in a JCB? 8O



billym said:


> Do not use it .If you do, do not use it in a confined space and if you do, do not just presume it will make your problem go away.


lol. That reminds me of a recently-retired colleague who started in the Police in 1976. There was no proper tutoring then, and his mentor was a hairy-ar*ed old copper who'd joined 30 years previously just after the war. He told him, "Listen son - there's only three things you need to know. One - never go off your area. Two - never sh*g on duty. Three - if you must sh*g on duty, do it off your area."



Dougie.


----------



## billym (Dec 17, 2005)

Asprn

That is why I said I wish I could write so eloquently. I did not think he was dead before he got sprayed !!

As for the other I cannot speak with experience other than to say that another such old timer did advise me never to admit to anything.

Kijana

As for the well aimed rock, well it was an extremely well aimed rock and that made all the difference.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

billym said:


> I did not think he was dead before he got sprayed


Heh - I was only pulling your leg.



billym said:


> As for the other I cannot speak with experience other than to say that another such old timer did advise me never to admit to anything.


Not bad advice in our climate of Lying Gets You Everywhere.

Dougie.


----------

