I wonder what could have happened had a person who pursues some Country sports been cleaning his equipment at the crucial moment, perhaps in the room where he/she keeps all of the parts of that country pursuit and if they felt threatened etc. who knows what 'could' have happened. Interesting thought.
I would further like to know how many of the perpetrators were called Smith or some such like.
On a Motoring note please enlighten this poor brain. What is the likely destination of this car and how/why? AND how much do these piles of shi earn (sic) from their efforts?
|
Yeah Martin, before these damn furriners came took our jobs and wimmin there was no crime here.
|
|
They can have the Wimmin. Well, most of them anyway.
|
>>They can have the Wimmin. Well, most of them anyway.
True dat.
|
It's a bit like being Luxembourg with the Wermacht on your doorstep. Futile to sacrifice life or limbs.
The vehicle is insured and there's already enough evidence to prove force etc.
But what do you buy next so as not to be re-visited?
|
The robbers didn't look very frightening to me, but then I didn't see them waving crowbars or hear them howling obscenities (a skill in which I myself excel).
The question that arises though, since the victims were clearly security-minded enough to have cctv outside and in their lobby, is: why didn't they consider security of any importance while watching TV, and shut their front door properly so that only those with keys could walk in?
People are very odd.
|
|
Now that is the Key, but not the point. One shouldn't be subjected to this in one's own house. The man with the moustache was considered (by some) to be much maligned.
|
I am absolutely NOT suggesting anything fishy.
Absolutely not.
|
>> www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2001/jan/27/features.jobsmoney
>>
dated Saturday 27 January 2001 !
How did you find that?
|
>>dated Saturday 27 January 2001 !
>>How did you find that?
There's a bit more out there about the old man and his franchise-selling ventures (OFT had an interest in the past it appears).
Might not be the same chap but may also have been a pub-owner not averse to seeking publicity.
Junior has a fair bit of interweb coverage and is a keen photographer.
|
>> Junior has a fair bit of interweb coverage and is a keen photographer.
>>
Looks like Junior is (Liver)pally with comedian John Bishop:
twitter.com/JohnBishop100/status/211949998047379456
|
>> I would further like to know how many of the perpetrators were called Smith or
>> some such like.
>>
The first one, who did not cover his face, definitely looks like Herbert Smith to me.
The second one is walking with a hump, so he could be a Herbert too, or maybe he is Hubert Humphrey.
As for
" >>They can have the Wimmin. Well, most of them anyway. >> ",
too late, dey aalreddy av taken dem.
|
This points directly back to the mid-80's when TWOCing first came to the attention of the public with the theft of hot hatches.
Instead of tackling the problem head on and dealing with the issue of theft, the Government of the day pushed the problem back on the manufacturers who improved security so we've got what we have today where the keys are required for most vehicles are being obtained by force.
Government will again pass the buck to the first to roll over (manufacturer or owner) without actually addressing the issue.
|
|
Why would you live in a crime ridden area like Manchester and leave your front door unlocked?!
|
You could turn your question on its head teabelly and ask, why is it accepted in a civilised society everything has to be kept under lock and key?
Why is theft accepted as the norm? Surely in a civilised society people know it is wrong to take something which is not their own.
Why can we not leave our possessions on our property without worrying someone will just walk in and help themselves?
Why should we have to lock everything away and not be protected by the laws we pay taxes to have put in place and enforced?
|
>> You could turn your question on its head teabelly and ask, why is it accepted
>> in a civilised society everything has to be kept under lock and key?
>>
>> Why is theft accepted as the norm? Surely in a civilised society people know it
>> is wrong to take something which is not their own.
>> Why can we not leave our possessions on our property without worrying someone will just
>> walk in and help themselves?
>> Why should we have to lock everything away and not be protected by the laws
>> we pay taxes to have put in place and enforced?
>>
It's called crime prevention! You wouldn't leave your car unlocked parked on the street so why leave your house unlocked on that same street?
Unfortunately the low life scum haven't had it beaten out of them that they can't just walk in and take stuff. One day they'll do it to someone with nothing to lose. It should be left to those sorts of people as defending yourself over possessions is still considered poor form.
It would be nice if we lived in this mythical 1950s world where you can leave your house open forever and nothing would ever go missing, but we don't.
|
>>It would be nice if we lived in this mythical 1950s world where you can leave your house open forever and nothing would ever go missing, but we don't<<
Some of us do though - my door is unlocked all day and the top alf (barn type) is usually open too - all day.
My car is unlocked with the keys in the ignition 7 days a week = Go West!.
|
>Why would you live in a crime ridden area like Manchester and leave your front door unlocked?!
I can see an opportunity here.
"RattleandSmoke Private Security Services"
|
As my missus commented when I read the article out to her - what would have been the outcome if Chris Rustage had decided to take the low lifes on.
Personally, I think he did the correct thing under the circumstances - especially with his wife and children in the room which included a 3 year old.
They clearly used shock and awe tactics and it doesn't bare thinking about .. sitting down to a bit of telly with your family and in bursts 2 hairy assed geezers hollering and shouting, wielding crowbars.
Just as well I drive a Lancer Estate really.
|
>> Personally, I think he did the correct thing under the circumstances - especially with his
>> wife and children in the room which included a 3 year old.
>>
Time and place. Being the hero with your 3 yr old present isn't the time or place, when it's just your car they're after.
|
>> Time and place. Being the hero with your 3 yr old present isn't the time
>> or place, when it's just your car they're after.
>>
Where would you draw the line Westpig.
It's "only" a GBP25k car which the owner has spent the last x number of years saving up for. How do you know these two aren't on their first job and bricking it just as much as you are and you are about to reward them for showing a bit of front. We've all been told "it's not worth it" but this is not the attitude our parents and grand-parents showed. They would have taken the crow bars off them and shoved them...giving the little gits the pasting of their life but we are in the wrong to do that now. Why is that ?
|
>> We've all been told "it's not worth it"
>> but this is not the attitude our parents and grand-parents showed. They would have taken
>> the crow bars off them and shoved them...giving the little gits the pasting of their
>> life but we are in the wrong to do that now. Why is that ?
>>
I wasn't coming from the angle of whether or not it was 'right' or 'legal'. I was coming from the angle of not fighting with oiks in front of my family, esp a 3 yr old, for the sake of a car, when it could all go horribly wrong.... and they are armed with crowbars and all I've got is my Sky clicker.
If you knew what to say...and I do........ you could kill both of them and there's not a court in the land that would convict you of anything (albeit there'd be some intense weariness whilst it was all investigated).
It's choosing your moments...and I think I am the sort of person that would dive in.
|
Agree with you about picking your moment and choosing your battles and I wasn't having a go at you personally.
I think the message of just giving up has gone too far the other way though. It's one thing the shop girl being given the days takings for the bank in the 1960's and handing over the cash but another thing today with two doped up idiots going unchallenged.
|
It's futile to wonder why we should take precautions to protect our persons and property in a 'civilised society'. The society is civilised up to a point, but since there are 60 million people in it only a halfwit would assume that they are all equally civilised, or at least under the control of the forces of order.
The reason people should lock their front doors day and night is that it's the only sensible thing to do if you live in a town. And as I pointed out earlier in the thread, the OP victims had cctv outside the house and in the lobby. What is it there for, amusement?
Naturally I quite agree with Westpig and others that robbers deserve anything they get from their victims up to and including death.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 13 Jun 12 at 04:15
|
>> The reason people should lock their front doors day and night is that it's the
>> only sensible thing to do if you live in a town. And as I pointed
>> out earlier in the thread, the OP victims had cctv outside the house and in
>> the lobby. What is it there for, amusement?
>>
owner is on Twitter twitter.com/#!/chrisrustage
He says in reply to a question:
twitter.com/ChrisRustage/status/211953736547975168
" HULK @Chilli_Hulk @JohnBishop100 @chrisrustage
You left your front door open???
Chris Rustage @ChrisRustage @Chilli_Hulk @johnbishop100
A momentary lapse in security - normally kept locked."
He says Reg No. is 68CCR
twitter.com/ChrisRustage/status/211139442038153218
|
>>A momentary lapse in security - normally kept locked."<<
Not a momentary lapse of reason then: www.youtube.com/watch?v=may4eoxbZmM&feature=related
|
>> If you knew what to say...and I do........ you could kill both of them and
>> there's not a court in the land that would convict you of anything (albeit there'd
>> be some intense weariness whilst it was all investigated).
>>
>> I was in fear of my life.
|
Westpig. When the police come and take me away for something similar, I shall just refer them to this thread and ask them to ask you (or one of your colleagues) what it is I should say in order to be let off.
This isn't a dig, BTW. But if it's as formulaic as this then why would anybody ever say anything to the police, and just wait until it comes to court and produce you to the jury as the only relevant evidence.
i.e. if with the right training there won't be any evidence, why should anybody bother giving any evidence to the police.
|
>> But if it's as formulaic as this then why would
>> anybody ever say anything to the police, and just wait until it comes to court
>> and produce you to the jury as the only relevant evidence.
>>
>> i.e. if with the right training there won't be any evidence, why should anybody bother
>> giving any evidence to the police.
>>
The habitual criminal doesn't say anything, they haven't done for years.
Mr or Mrs Straightforward will often sing like a lark...and incriminate themselves in some way.
That's why the law was changed some years back, so that a suspect can now be given a warning that failure to highlight something now that they then later rely on in court, can have an inference made along the lines of 'why not say it earlier'.
Trouble is there is 'disclosure' made to any defence solicitor when they attend to represent their client i.e.facts about the case and some of the evidence...and if the solicitor feels that the disclosure is not sufficient, then they'll advise their client to say nothing. ...and this fact will be highlighted to the court to counter the above warning having been given. The level of disclosure is somewhat subjective...and...for many habitual criminals it is automatic to say 'No Comment' to everything. You may draw your own conclusions as to the frequency of the usage of this tactic.
In the case of harming someone, you'd have to show you feared for yours or another's safety and that the harm caused was 'reasonable' in the circumstances.
So if you said 'you feared for your own and your family's safety'...get out of jail free.
If you said 'you got angry at thieving scum stealing your property' go directly to jail. Do not collect £200.
|
I covered the recent indecent assault trial of Sunderland AFC footballer Titus Bramble - he was found not guilty.
He gave two 'no comment' interviews, and when cross-examined about it said, truthfully, he was acting on the advice of his solicitor.
A jury might expect an innocent man to at least display some righteous indignation when a police officer accuses him of touching up young lasses in a nightclub.
In Bramble's case the rest of the evidence was weak, so I suspect he would have been found not guilty whatever he said in interview.
|
>> In the case of harming someone, you'd have to show you feared for yours or
>> another's safety and that the harm caused was 'reasonable' in the circumstances.
>>
>> So if you said 'you feared for your own and your family's safety'...get out of
>> jail free.
>>
>> If you said 'you got angry at thieving scum stealing your property' go directly to
>> jail. Do not collect £200.
>>
>>
Well, he was wielding a large knife. So I shot him.
(actually that isn't the whole truth. But I have a well-stocked cutlery drawer. and nothin g matches.)
|
Be afraid, be very afraid ... - MD
