- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,187
- Reaction score
- 6,495
- Country
Sorry have you started a new thread with 10 of your own replies that nobody is interested in?
Bus driver sacked OMG
- Thread starter pete01
- Start date
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 1,833
- Reaction score
- 97
- Country
The tribunal was not about the force used. It was about the fairness of the dismissal. In that process it decided that the dismissal based on the dereliction of duty, and the spectacle of a representative of the company fighting in the street, was not unfair.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 1,833
- Reaction score
- 97
- Country
You kept presenting your interpretation of the law, which was incorrect.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,187
- Reaction score
- 6,495
- Country
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?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,187
- Reaction score
- 6,495
- 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:
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 1,833
- Reaction score
- 97
- 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
- 1,833
- Reaction score
- 97
- 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
- 27,187
- Reaction score
- 6,495
- Country
Himmy - read s76 as above
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 1,833
- Reaction score
- 97
- Country
Which is irrelevant on this occasion.
Which is relevant on this occasion.
It is the relevant law, if the driver is to be believed.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 1,833
- Reaction score
- 97
- Country
What do you mean hence 'self defence wrong law'? Self defence is not a 'law', nor have I mentioned it. Please explain?
I will say again - 'reasonable force' however is applied and defined across UK law in general, and is what I have been arguing about since you got it all wrong in the last thread.
Here is a reminder of why you shouldn't pursue someone with a weapon, after a threat has passed........
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.
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)
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,187
- Reaction score
- 6,495
- Country
do you think that was staged?
OMG, poor pickpocket
