Good for Her

More people should stand up against the scum of the earth I say.

 

Only makes sense; which side are the police on in Britain?

 

Well done that lady!!

 

Did those aggrieved youths file a complaint against her for brutality?

 

Way to go for that Granny! Thanks for the story Richard.

 

Great story! Nothing screams "I am a loser" like getting outrun and collared by a near septagenarian lady! I wish she had grabbed him the ear.

 

Good question, not so much as the police but what they have to up hold that of the law, are laws in this country are a mess thanks to the EU.

I support all those who stand up to the scum in this country.

 

Now, don't blame the EU. Your laws were screwed way before you joined the EU.

As for the police POV, they were only looking out for the interests of the people. Imagine the kid had a knife and stabbed her. Now you'd be throwing rants about insecurity and such. The police did their job right.
It's a great thing that the lady managed to get the little buggers but it's always a risk.





Cheers...

 

You got that right.

I had personally encountered something similar when I was still a police reporter some years ago. Instead of an old lady, it was a pregnant woman in her late 20s (five months on the way) and accompanied by another young lady, (18 or 19 years old if I remember it right). The two women were waiting for their ride at a jeepney stop around 10 in the evening in Caloocan City when five teenaged thugs tried to mug them.
Unfortunately for the thugs, the two women had just came from taekwondo practice at a nearby gym. The older lady was at the gym to be with her friends even if she couldn't really join in the regular practice.
The mother-to-be, though she couldn't kick well because of her condition, used her gym bag as both weapon and shield while her younger companion kicked the hell out of the would-be muggers. In effect, the mother-to-be acted as the wingman and covered her companion's flank and rear while the younger took the closest two thugs on.
Shocked at what they thought were easy prey, the five tried to flee. Since the two women had the initiative, they caught one of the closest thugs and gave him a good wallop.
When the cops arrived, the mother-to-be and the younger women were sitting on their captured thug, pinning him to the ground. The arrested thug sang like a canary and police arrested the other four later.

 

Oh come now. I have it on good authority that the laws in England are supposed to prevent criminals from possessing weapons. The police are charged with protecting people. They obviously failed miserably in this case.

 

Excellent lady, kick their asses!

 

The EU has messed this country up, the days of the real police up holding the real British law are long gone thanks to the diluted clap trap out of the EU.

BURN IN HELL EUROPEAN UNION.

 

Richard, actually I think you'll find EU legislation has very little to do with this, as I have pointed out before the EU human rights act has hardly ever been used successfully in this context. It is actually our own definition of 'reasonable force' that causes problems and the wrangling of lawyers that makes them worse.

DA, how would you suggest the police could have behaved differently? They can't be everywhere all the time, particularly not if every time they actually enforce the law they have to fill in a mountain of paperwork to avoid getting sued (ahh, compensation culture, thanks for that by the way!) The reason they advise people not to intervene is because quite often 'have a go heroes' wind up beaten to a pulp bleeding in a gutter, frankly their advice is very sensible!

Sure our police have a difficult job, but it's not the EU's fault, more to do with us importing things from our colonial cousins . Sadly what works in the US doesn't necessarily work over here...

 

I'm not suggesting that your police act in any particular manner, merely wondering why they presume to advise people on how to protect themselves when they obviously can't do the job themselves. I agree that police can't be everywhere all the time (actually they can, but that's usually called a "police state"), and that is precisely why I claim it is foolish to count on the police to protect one's person and property in a reasonably free state.

Blaming your problems on the US is ridiculous because your system apparently is nothing like ours. I know little about your laws, or the EU's, but it does seem that we see an inordinate number of reports of British justice gone to Hell in a handbasket since your judicial system has fallen under the evil influence of the EU. I'd be willing to bet that compliance with the EU-inspired requirements is, by far, more responsible for the police being called upon to fill out mountains of paperwork, than any need to protect themselves from litigation.

As for protecting one's self in the absence of the police, the burden is obviously on the citizen to use his or her own best judgment in each case, as each encounter with a criminal is different and the level of potential danger varies with numerous factors. But I find police advising victims to roll over and be good little victims to be symptomatic of a large part of your criminal problem.

 

I don't get the point. Is there some adminstration either UK or EU which suggests not to stop someone who snatches a purse? It's just that the lady took care of herself because she was there and police wasn't. Had the police been there it would have caugh tthe scum and arrest him. There is nobody to blame here, except the thief of course, but let's praise the lady instead, I don't know how many among us could still chase a thief at here age.

 

That is a bit like saying it is stupid for a chef to presume to advise people how to cook when they can't cook for you themselves. The police actually know a fair amount about the law, the usual actions of criminals and so on, seems fair for them to offer advice with that knowledge.

You would loose. The human rights act (the piece of legislation we are on about) has been involved in around 100 cases since it was brought into effect, few to none of these involve the police. The reason they are so wrapped up in paperwork is because at every turn these days they are sued, disciplined or complained about. No question of blaming the US, it is simply that it is a particular aspect of your culture that has made it over here and doesn't work.

And I think the police advising people not to bother risking their lives unnecessarily quite fair. No one is saying 'roll over and be a victim' just that it generally isn't worth the risk for an un-armed elderly woman to attack younger, potentially armed criminals. Makes sense to me. Frankly I would say that the police advice says more about the 'judgement' of most members of society than the 'criminal problem.' That said, I would say that your criminal problem over there suggests that maybe the problem is a bit more complex than your apparent assumption that everyone over here is a coward.

 

I don't think so, based on what my brother in law has told me about the police and recent "innovations" in British police procedures. So you are contending that litigation against the police originated in America, and has now spread to England? I suppose Britain didin't have Tort law prior to it's introduction in the US? Seems to me I remember reading some early English Tort cases in law school that predated the American colonies by a couple hundred years? If you are seriously saying that litigation against the police has been inspired by American practice, I think it's a simple step to simply grant immunity to police no matter what they do.

Well, if a chef can't cook for himself, or won't eat the food he prepares, I'd say it's just common sense not to take any advice he might offer on how to cook. In any case, the lady in question certainly demonstrated that she was better at protecting herself than the police.

I'm not assuming anything about the personal courage of the average Brit, but the police "advice" would certainly cause one to wonder if they preferred a citizenery composed of cowards. perhaps they're thinking about job security?

Excuse me, but the poloice are advising that it is better to be a good little victim and play along with the criminals when they tell people not to pursue a purse snatcher or resist a crime. I'm sure the criminals themselves would second the motion, if asked.

 

No, I am saying that the need of the police to protect themselves against litigation at every turn has far more to do with the compensation culture we live in than the EU. Personally I think that this has more to do with the way things are done in the US than the UK. If you disagree, oh well, I'm just judging by what I see around me.

Well, your first two comments are pretty irrelevant, the fact remains the police know quite a lot about the state of affairs and so are very well qualified to give advice, just as a chef is qualified to give advice about how to cook.

Ahh, that must be it, the police want crime to make sure they have jobs, of course! Sorry, I think you confuse cowardice and common-sense. The simple fact is that often it is not worth chasing a criminal, that said, I do remember a lad I was at school stabbing a mugger in the face with a biro, very entertaining and damn good work!

That doesn't alter the fact that if the criminals had turned out to be armed she would have been screwed. Are you going to give your life for a mobile phone? That's what it comes down for and unless I'm fairly sure I have a chance of winning I sure as hell am not (and before you call me a coward, consider that on at least two occaisions I have used physical force to prevent crimes being committed and hand people over to the authorities).

 

I know what you are saying and I don't think it is correct, based on what I have heard on this forum from people like Richard, as well as my brother in law. To blame litigation against the police on American influence is, to say the least, farcical, since our Tort law is based on English tort law, not the other way around.

They were based on your response to may original comment, so that makes it all irrelevant. As is your reference that the police know quite a lot. Sure they do, about the law, about police patrols, about arresting people. But that doesn't mean squat when you are a citizen, by yourself and facing a criminal intent on breaking the law. What good does telling people just to relax and enjoy the experience do, when what they really need is protection? As I understand it, your police are supposed to protect the people. The difference in the US and UK systems is that here, we recognize the police can't do that. Here the police are not responsible for protecting any individual, hence they can't be sued for failing to do so.

No, I have never mentioned cowardice. You have injected the issue of cowardice into the discussion. I am all for common sense, but I credit the citizen with it, not the police. As for whether it is worth chasing the criminal, or otherwise resisting the crime, if the police are present, I agree, but since they seldom are, let the citizen make that decision for themselves.

Oh, I see, It's Ok for you to decide to use physical force to resist a crime, but no one else? You've just destroyed the basis of your argument in your zeal to convince me that you, and presumably Brits in general, aren't cowards. You seem inordinately concerned that I think you are cowards across the pond. I have never mentioned, or even implied any such belief. But you have conjured up the idea out of your own insecurity.

I don't intend to carry this discussion any further. I think the lady should be commended. In her place I would have told the police to go to Hell, if they presumed to "advise" me. I'm just glad to see the ideals of courage, self-reliance, and personal responsibility are still alive in at least a few British hearts.

 

Clearly we aren't going to agree on this, however it seems that the issue of the EU being the cause of the problems has been resolved, the rest is largely conjecture so who cares.

Not relevant because they don't fit the metaphor or situation. The police do a job (like a chef) but can't be everywhere for everyone (like a chef) and so offer advice for what to do when they aren't there (like a chef). Seems totally reasonable for them to offer advice based on their knowledge of what is likely to happen if an individual does start to make a fuss. Incidentally, no one is saying 'relax and enjoy the experience' and your constant inference that they are is just plain daft. All they are saying is 'don't get stabbed over a phone or a wallet.'

You credit the general population with common sense in this day and age? Do you live in a cave? Moreover, no one is taking the latter decision away from the individual, simply offering advice. Let me say that again just for clarity, no one is saying 'you can not resist criminals' simply advising that it is dangerous and so sometimes better not to. Makes sense to me.

Sorry, I have not conjured it up, simply interpreted it from your constant insinuation (and indeed your use of the phrase 'citizenry composed of cowards' implying that to not resist crime is cowardice when actually it is often simply common sense. You have also totally missed my point, at no stage have I said that it is wrong to resist crime, nor that people should never do it, simply that the police are probably right to advise people against it. They aren't stopping people from doing it, people aren't punished for doing it, they simply say that it is often not a good idea. Simple, sensible, individuals make their own minds up.

Jeez, you guys get so worked up about 'self reliance' that you go nuts as soon as anyone offers you advice on anything. Take it easy. I presume if a policeman advised you to slow down because a patch of road ahead was dangerous you would tell him to go to hell and roar through it anyhow?