- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,029
- Reaction score
- 5,916
- Country
and now he's turned a thread about a bus driver in to yet another Jew hating thread.
Bus driver sacked OMG
- Thread starter pete01
- Start date
Go ahead.
Firstly - explain what you mean when you keep repeating wrong law?
Just for clarity - 'reasonable force' guidance has been tested against and applies to:
Criminal Law Act 1967 (Section 3)*
Common Law
Children Act 1989 & 2004
Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Section 93)
Use of Reasonable Force in Schools – DfE Guidance
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Sections 5–6)
Human Rights Act 1998
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Equality Act 2010
* this is the law you quoted when you first started blathering. Have you changed your mind? Let me remind you about this law that YOU quoted...
The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.
The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)
- Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders...".
- Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
- Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.
What if I chase them as they run off?
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.
Chasing a fleeing suspect with a weapon and subsequently using it is highly likely to be considered malice, revenge, or retaliation rather than self-defence in legal terms, particularly if the initial threat has passed.
(Source - CPS)
So, for the benefit of everyone watching, please can you explain what you think you mean when you say 'wrong law' please?
You hide behind your keyboard slagging off another man's wife. Not a good look.
how'd ya figure that?
I suggested she must be out since he was up all night on the forum talking balls to keep up his post count and self-appointed '#1' status...in a different post to the one you quoted.
i'd say the same to you about your slanderous accusations of anti-semitism but a weasel like you won't do that, will you?
He's only 29 pages into his waffle so there's no chance of that.
He has repeated the words 'wrong law' time and time again. without any context what so ever. It will be interesting to see what he thinks he means.He's only 29 pages into his waffle so there's no chance of that.
A controversial use of the word 'interesting' but crack on if you must...
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,029
- Reaction score
- 5,916
- Country
Certainly:
This is incorrect. It will depend entirely on the circumstances and the honest belief of the accused.
This is explained in the Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which was amended in 2013.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
An Act to make further provision about criminal justice (including provision about the police) and dealing with offenders and defaulters; to make further provision about the management of offenders; to amend the criminal law; to make further provision for combatting crime and disorder; to make...
This is mostly guidance that I think your AI cobbled together from a solicitors blog page and a "legal guide for care givers". though the guide clearly states it is not offering legal advice. It isn't actually written the way you presented it. Some of the opinion is factually incorrect (shown in red).
I'd already provided you with the CPS guidelines which are included in your House of Commons briefing. Almost all of the briefing is focused on the use of force for self defence against a home intruder. There is only a small (and relevant) section that you have not quoted. The section titled Use of Force against Those Committing Crime.
The common law right of Self Defence against a personal attack is different from the Statutory right in the Criminal Law Act 1967. Hence when you post about reasonable force as it relates to self defence you are referring to the "wrong law".
Imagine two Scenarios:
A threatens B with physical assault and leads B to believe he is at risk of imminent unlawful physical violence. Under well established common law, B may strike first, there is no longer a duty to retreat first. (since 1967). Once A is no longer a threat to B, B has no further justification for force. So if A decided to run away B cannot chase after him to inflict further "self defence".
A is committing an indictable offence as part of a group, B decided to exercise his power under S3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967, he may use reasonable force to prevent the crime and apprehend A. His right goes beyond common law (see sec 2). B grabs a scaffold pole to assist as he is both outnumbered and suspects B is armed. A decides to run away, B pursues and may continue to use reasonable force as he believes is necessary to apprehend A, even if that force turns out to be disproportionate with the benefit of hind sight. see Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 above for details.
hence - self defence - wrong law.
Last edited:
can you get any syrup on that load o' waffle?Certainly:
This is incorrect. It will depend entirely on the circumstances and the honest belief of the accused.
This is explained in the Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which was amended in 2013.
The use of disproportionate force can be regarded as reasonable in the circumstances, as the accused believed them to be. the scope is defined in subsection 2.Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
An Act to make further provision about criminal justice (including provision about the police) and dealing with offenders and defaulters; to make further provision about the management of offenders; to amend the criminal law; to make further provision for combatting crime and disorder; to make...www.legislation.gov.uk
This is mostly guidance that I think your AI cobbled together from a solicitors blog page and a "legal guide for care givers". though the guide clearly states it is not offering legal advice. It isn't actually written the way you presented it. Some of the opinion is factually incorrect (shown in red).
I'd already provided you with the CPS guidelines which are included in your House of Commons briefing. Almost all of the briefing is focused on the use of force for self defence against a home intruder. There is only a small (and relevant) section that you have not quoted. The section titled Use of Force against Those Committing Crime.
The common law right of Self Defence against a personal attack is different from the Statutory right in the Criminal Law Act 1967. Hence when you post about reasonable force as it relates to self defence you are referring to the "wrong law".
Imagine two Scenarios:
A threatens B with physical assault and leads B to believe his at risk of imminent unlawful physical violence. Under well established common law, B may strike first, there is no longer a duty to retreat first. (since 1967). Once A is no longer a threat to B, B has no further justification for force. So if A decided to run away B cannot chase after him to inflict further "self defence".
A is committing an indictable offence as part of a group, B decided to exercise his power under S3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967, he may use reasonable force to prevent the crime and apprehend A. His right goes beyond common law (see sec 2). B grabs a scaffold pole to assist as he is both outnumbered and suspects B is armed. A decides to run away, B pursues and may continue to use reasonable force as he believes is necessary to apprehend A, even if that force turns out to be disproportionate with the benefit of hind sight. see Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 above for details.
hence - self defence - wrong law.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 16
- Country
Not entirely, the credibility of the account given by the accused carries a fair degree of weight.
The injuries received and any other recorded or witnessed or physical evidence is also taken into account.
An accused can't simply say, "he came at me first".
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 16
- Country
In your opinion.
Or you can show it to be factually incorrect.
Looks like the bus driver was on this train lol.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,029
- Reaction score
- 5,916
- Country
Himmy - read s76 as above
