Need a rant!

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:38 am

Quote:

we are unable to help further

It's comments like this that make me want to suggest that you go back to the cops with a witness (preferably unimpeachable) and complain of his threatening behaviour and harrassment. Those aren't civil matters. Take their badge numbers (I believe they must give you those).

It may not do much good until you point out that if anything happens you will be making it known that they refused to do anything.

Of course a restraining order is a two edged sword. It calms some people down and infuriates others.. and waving a piece of paper at an enraged guy is not much use.

Change any locks he may have keys to, swap SIM cards and phone numbers.. and if you see him again, tell him you have 2 cousins who love her and who will take him down a dark alley - in fact you are having to hold them back from paying him a visit (and deny you ever said that, so don't say it over the phone).

OR

Present him with a bill for talking to you.. 10,000 quid so far. (EDIT Dammit, Nanny beat me to it)

If I read about someone being trapped in train doors on his way to London, I'll think of you Cool

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:22 am

Quote:

He is now threatening her with court and baliffs!

A million years ago I told my ex-husband that he must do whatever he thought fit. Let him go to law, don't respond until you have a summons or solicitors letter.

Then screw him legally! Is almost as much fun as baiting!

train boi Joined: 04 Nov 2008 Posts: 697

I want him to send us court papers so we can have a good chuckle, No court in the land will find in his favour (if anything he will earn a place on the vixacious claimant list), My solicitor has said that, My legal helpline agreed and people on here. If it does go to court, Im going to sell tickets WU only! SSC will be providing the shuttle to get to the court

I'm just going to laugh it off, no point worrying now is there. She hasnt done anything wrong so all is good Smile

This claim is so crazy, it would be like me charging eater £150 for the 10minutes it took me to write this post)

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:03 pm

^^Actually the going rate is 10 quid/post.. haven't you been getting that? Confused

train boi Joined: 04 Nov 2008 Posts: 697

I have but £150 is more fair Wink

** Retired ** Joined: 14 May 2007 Posts: 750 Location: Air

Im totally in awe of your self restraint Jay.

If this was my situation, I would have been on bail by now.

I really hope that this gets sorted out without the need for to give him a proper good kicking for your sake and that of your family.

Best wishes to you and your girls man.

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:43 pm

Jay you are a good thinker! Usin ga cool head is the best route.

Question for you,however, do you folks have the castle defense in the UK? You never know when the boy might show up at your house, step about 1 - 2 meters in and present something which you might perceive as a shiny object which may induce death or great bodily harm. Thusly, having no further retreat you may have to act in a manner to prevent said shiny object from causing death or great bodily harm, ahem...tire iron, mallet...until it is discovered it was only some common item. Better to err on the side of caution.
Wink

The police, no doubt, have noted you have issue with the young fella and will take into account whether or not you seemed to hold malice for the man or vice versa. Best is to down play the urge to commit violence in case you might need to defend yourself in the future. It is better to make him seem violent.

Sounds bad but if the guy ever wants a tumble you shouldn't have to be put on the block because he played the victim. Kind of like letting the lad feel as though he were in control.

Here in the states, more often than not, the bad guy plays it to be the victim if the victim fights back. Hence why folks like Bernie Goetz goes to trial when he shoots 4 thugs trying to strong arm rob him with a imaginary weapon. He had a real one, felt threatened and used it. Goetz was put up on criminal charges as well as civil for his preception that his life was in danger.

Master of Master Baiters Joined: 26 Sep 2008 Posts: 689

"An Englishman's Home Is His Castle" ... has not proven to be the reliable case on several occassions in recent civil/criminal cases. Reasonable force in repelling a would be assailant is wide open to interpretation and an unreliable defence against a good lawyer or idiot judge ... unless you're on the side of law and order that is.

Shooting someone here would land you in so much troiuble, we have gun laws that are VERY strict, we do not have a constitutional right to bear arms ... or any nutters variation thereof.

We supposedly have the right to protect our home and family .... it just has to be done well within the confines of the law.

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:38 pm

Too bad you're in the UK - I'd love to see Judge Judy take on this character. Very Happy

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:58 pm

Hopefully, not off topic, but I am trying to learn something....

Perhaps an example with blunt force trauma would be defensible? I am not saying a defensible kill here either.

There was a certain U.S. Football (American style) player who was home when two would be burglars entered his home. He proceeded to unscrew a rather large wrought iron bedpost piece from his bed and cracked both upside the head when they entered his bed room. Neither was killed, one was incapacitated and the other somehow fled. After seeing the booking pictures it is a wonder the one who fled never sought medical attention.

This is a case where persons unknown entered a house unlawfully. It was unknown by the owner if there was a weapon present, but given his reknown in the community, it would not be unlikely for the persons to have a weapon. The home owner stopped the threat whne it had reached his room of last retreat, from which there was no exit. He then stopped the threat to himself and his spouse. The courts found the football player not guilty of any crime but put the other two in prison for 3 years, I think (older case don't remember, may be more).

I find it interesting the UK justice system would be so quick to deny the basic right to protect one's life from a would be attacker. Does the removal of a fire arm from the equation change this?

Elite Baiter Joined: 16 Jul 2008 Posts: 1407

1. I don't think anywhere in the above posts does it suggest that the UK would prevent you from protecting yourself from an intruder. We live in the US where firearms are for the most part readily available, in the UK they are not. So that part of the equation is a bit unequal.

Secondly, in the US you are allowed to protect yourself and family with some exceptions (IE you cant shoot someone LEAVING through a window), or putting down a threat, and then later finishing them off before the police arrive etc.

I don't think the UK is any different. If you are in fear for your life, I would suspect the courts would not prosecute.

2. The OP is not concerned of an imminent 'home invasion' by the ex-boyfriend. At this point he is a rather brash annoyance with visions of some sort of courtroom victory to ease his broken (or crazy ass) heart.

The steps we are suggesting are to bring to an end the harrasment of Mr. Leno and his wife.

train boi Joined: 04 Nov 2008 Posts: 697

Thanks for the replies

I would love to see Judge Judy say "You get zippo, Have a nice day, life and get out of my courtroom!"

Even though I want to remove his bollocks using a blunt rusty bread knife, I can't inflict physical pain on anybody. Its not in my makeup. I just want to protect lisa and katie, I'd never use a weapon neither.

He rang her old number earlier and texted saying "I love you" thats about it, I kept an eye out for him at work, But didnt see him (I work on the intercity trains for those who don't know).

I hope he goes back to the rock he crawled from.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Mar 2007 Posts: 2628

And gets squished

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:43 pm

Do not, I repeat do not lay a finger on him.
However much of an asshole the guy is and however much he deserves a good pummeling, if you touch him, you will be the one getting nicked. Even if you try for mitigating circumstances and provocation, you will still face charges and likely get a conviction against your name.

The restraining order is the way to go. In the meantime, if he turns up on your doorstep again, simply ask him to leave and close the door. If he refuses, call the old bill immediately.

If he's still trying to get hold of your missus, document all phone calls and contact that he makes, noting the date, time and content.

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:48 pm

Good counsel as always SOOI!

Have you considered voodoo, or perhaps having a lad place his name at the Okija Shrine? You could sign him up for some nifty free catalogs (asian bride, russian bride, sex toy) if you have his post address, if you know an email, you could hook him with a few guestbooks, subtle nerdy ways to have a few licks in.

@Jay-you used a double negative in your post there...

@Tasty - there are some flaws in your logic regarding the use of deadly force but that is neither here nor there. Wink

This is not the place for that debate (which I am sure has a thread locked up tight somewhere around here).

Mad

<---mad or constipated?

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

Quote:

if you know an email, you could hook him up on the shuttle service or put it on a few guestbooks for him, subtle nerdy ways to have a few licks in.

You may have been joking but baiter tools should never be abused this way. Signing up a non-baiter for the shuttle could have the result that those scammers' emails get reported, undoing the hard work of the person running the shuttle and rendering all of the emails useless to the rest of us.

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:56 pm

Quote:

1. I don't think anywhere in the above posts does it suggest that the UK would prevent you from protecting yourself from an intruder.

Not in the main no, but there have been a few well documented incidents that have ended with the property owner being prosecuted or worse killed.

In UK law you are allowed to use 'reasonable force'. Though the definition of that probably varies from police force to police force. It is joked about in the UK that if you whacked an intruder over the head as he robbed your home, you'd get a prison sentence and he'd get a nice holiday somewhere hot.

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:29 pm

Ms Mockinatrix wrote:

In UK law you are allowed to use 'reasonable force'. Though the definition of that probably varies from police force to police force.

The definition varies from case to case - a lot depends on the attitude of the copper who turns up to the scene.

But either way, if some guy turned up on your doorstep and you pushed him, it's doubtful that anything would occur. But if you clouted him and he called the cops, you're probably going to get dragged down to the station - even if he's on your property.

Like I said, the safest thing to do is tell him to fuck off and then bang the door in his face. If he refuses once you've told him, he is committing the crime of trespass and you should call the cops. In the scenario that he refuses to leave I'd personally go for a straight 999 rather than phoning the front desk of your local station, telling them that you are fearful for your safety - it will be treated more seriously.

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:01 pm

Reasonable, that is the most interpreted word in any country's laws. Reasonablity is in the eye of the beholder. In the U.S. certain actions are based upon what a reasonable person would construe as being reasonable. Who is a reasonable person...the unanswerable question.

The main thing is to hope that you get 8-12 (not sure what the crown sizes their juries at) reasonable-like minded individuals at your appointment before the bench!

I think the safe thing is the restraint order, it might be of note if there is any sign of violence during your recent encounters with him that should be brought to the attention of the barrister/court for special consideration. As you may fear for your family or your own safety. Cover all the bases you can.

Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:12 pm

@JL

The advice SOOI offers is very good advice. If you need to go back to your local copshop mention the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Quote:

In England and Wales The most significant law making stalking and harassment illegal is The Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

What do I need to know about the Protection from Harassment Act 1997?

The Act can be used in both the Civil and Criminal Courts.

It makes it unlawful to 'pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which the defendant knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another' (section 1(1)).

Section 1(2) says that a person ought to know that a course of conduct amounts to harassment if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that it amounted to harassment.

Slapping him might make you feel good but the restraining order will be more effective!

Elite Baiter Joined: 19 Jan 2008 Posts: 1043

Slightlyoutofit wrote:

Like I said, the safest thing to do is tell him to fuck off and then bang the door in his face. If he refuses once you've told him, he is committing the crime of trespass and you should call the cops. In the scenario that he refuses to leave I'd personally go for a straight 999 rather than phoning the front desk of your local station, telling them that you are fearful for your safety - it will be treated more seriously.

Trespass isn't a crime. It's a civil matter. Yes, call the cops and say you are fearful, but most likely all they can do is walk him off of your property and tell him to feck off. If he acts up, or has anything on him that is illegal or could be used as a tool for breaking and entry, then they can nick him.

Elite Baiter Joined: 16 Jul 2008 Posts: 1407

Newdonym wrote:

Trespass isn't a crime. It's a civil matter.

Are you by chance that crack Barrister I've been baiting? Trespassing IS a crime. Or perhaps you haven't heard of "Criminal Trespass"?

It is a CRIMINAL matter, and YES you can be arrested for it. (At least in the US). And if you have asked someone to stay off your property, and they refuse to leave they CAN be arrested.

Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:59 am

Tresspass and criminal tresspass are two different crimes. The latter in an enhanced charge. Tresspassing law, and the terminology, can vary from state to state. In the UK this may be a civil matter covered by common law (if I may be so bold?). Our legal systems are similar but very different. Common law in the U.S. is virtually non-existant as the laws have been codified by Federal, State and local governments.

Interesting note is the idea f personal ownership of property between the two systems of law. Originally as put forth in the U.S. Constitution, land ownership is inviolate. Not even the Government has rights above the owner. This changed with the advent of imminent domain doctrines being handed down by high courts allowing government entities the ability to violate 4th Amendment rights.

I would absolutetly love run down of the how and whys of property ownership in the UK if any one would oblige?

Elite Baiter Joined: 19 Jan 2008 Posts: 1043

@tasty snack: I was talking of the relevant law to Jay Leno and myself. There is an offence of criminal trespass, but that is only for specifically designated areas and certainly will not be the case for mr Leno's front garden.

There are lots of laws that can be abused to arrest trespassers, but they are pretty archaic, like the vagrancy act offence of "being in an enclosed space", but again, that won't stick to a front garden.

Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:25 am

Jay, hope this jerk gets a life and leaves yours alone.