Thats what we should b doin!!!!!! - Outlaw (2007) Discussion

[–] chrismahon2005 18 years ago

Sady i agree with you mate,i dont think the police have the right powers any more,we are to soft on teenagers who cause the vast majority of anti social behaviour,they need to be shown you can not do that in a modern society,they need to also be shown to respect there elders and the law.And lastly if they dont like it,then tough,either shape up or else.

reply

[–] punisher_vcc 18 years ago

Farkin' A.

reply

[–] dunjakke 18 years ago

So basicly you are saying we should either kill or beat into a pulp people who do something thats against the law?

Wow. You guys rock.

reply

[–] JiNSaSi 18 years ago

Well what if you was attacked and you ended up in hospital for around 6 months because of your injuries and the geezers who put you there got locked up for 3 months came back out and did it to someone else.

Would you think that the law could stop them or maybe a good smacking in would do?

reply

[–] dunjakke 18 years ago

I dont believe in violence.
But I do believe in a change in the current system.
As it is now the law system doesn't work. The sentences are too short and the prisons do not work as intended. Prison is about rehabilitation. Not punishment, or atleast to a certain degree.

But atleast this movie is better than Death Wish, that is about the same subject matter.

reply

[–] shake7772001 18 years ago

Outlaw was cool. Death Wish is a classic. Nuff Said.

Bones it, Padlock it... And put the chain on it. -Rip Reed

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melodyalice 18 years ago

My brother was beat up for no reason at all a few days before his 18th bday last year. Had his jaw broken and had to have surgery, spent a few nights in hospital, missed out on his birthday, missed first term of college which affected the entire year, missed a lot of work (he had basic contract hours but did a lot of overtime each week so only got sick pay for his basic wages) and it really knocked his confidence. Completely unprovoked attack as he walked home with TWO mates after playin football. One thug out of a gang of about 30 ran up and asked who was walking past him, my brother went to walk away and got beat up.

He identified the boy to the police and had obvious injuries. What did the boy get??

Nothing. The police said there was not enough evidence as the boy said my brother had started. The boy is known the police, had no injuries himself and was with a massive gang of mates.

No justice what so ever in this country. Innocent people are scared to retaliate and these thugs are winning.

reply

[–] Tina-CHI-Lou 18 years ago

That is truly terrible melodyalice, my heart goes out to your Brother & family because the families suffer to as I'm sure you'll be aware . Fortunately the bruises will go away but unfortunately its the mental scars that events like that leave behind. I hope he is recoving well.

I was absolutely disgusted a few weeks ago when a boy of 16 was beaten up and then stabbed to death in South London.
Over 40 lads were all fighting.The poor boy cried for help as A GANG stamped on his head. Nobody deserves to die this way.

charliehunnam.com.ar
Email Tina, Noelia, here with anything Charlie related or fanmail for him
[email protected]

reply

[–] iamrioto 17 years ago

sad to hear this.

thats why i never try to get the cops involved. i sort this *beep* out myself. bring back justice by using the weapon they use of us.. violence. bring it

reply

[–] baal-zebub 17 years ago

I agree the law doen't work.

Young criminals have nothing to lose.
They do wathever they want.

Rich and upperclass people have nothing to lose and have enough money and good friends to do wathever they want.

I'm affraid our society has become to decadent and nothing will change this.

Not even Batman or Dirty Harry....

reply

[–] Hazzer_99 16 years ago

Oh... my... God. There's two types of people in this country: the people who are scared to walk the streets at night for fear of getting killed, and the people who are too stupid to be scared to walk the streets at night for fear of getting killed. Those of us who are scared reckon we should turn around and bitch slap these little *beep* *beep* that go around sucking tax-payers’ money, doing nothing but hanging on the street and mugging people. And the rest of the tree hugging liberal bitches out there are too busy feeling sorry for the little *beep* for some reason or other genuinely concerned that we might hurt their feelings or worse yet force them to become better people.
You, sir, are the latter. Should we kill murderers? Yes. Should we beat rapists and muggers who rob old ladies to a pulp? Yes. Then we might actually live in a country where parents can let their children go out for an evening with their friends and not risk a call telling them their kid looked at some punk wrong and got stabbed twenty times for it. Where the worst that can happen is you get beaten badly and take a month to recover, not brutally knifed to death. This country is turning into a *beep* and the police have no power and too much paperwork. The more fair, reasonable and unbarbaric you try to be, the more unfair, unreasonable and barbaric the country becomes. You have no idea how much damage to our country you are causing with comments like that.

Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...

reply

[–] gregforttmags 16 years ago

I got violently attacked by a punk for merely walking into his field of vision from nearly fifty feet away.

reply

[–] Hazzer_99 16 years ago

Sorry to hear that man. It's a *beep* world we live in sometimes.

Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...

reply

[–] gregforttmags 16 years ago

No worries, I've almost fully recovered and lost a lot of body weight (being fat was somehow threatening to that deranged fruitloop who jumped me. His glazed eyes were bulging out of his sockets).

I still don't we should remove due process and violently kill criminals without any legal legitimacy, even though the courts in the US and UK are totally f--ked up, with the latter court system being especially unfair on law abiding citizens.

You cannot give out too many concessions to ruthless and cruel thugs who'd take a mile if given an inch, while at the same time punishing people protecting themselves, other people, or property from criminal attack. I can remember reading about a UK case where a normal guy carried out a citizen's arrest on a few lowlifes getting away. Was he given a medal? No, he had his f--king address given to the punks he helped to arrest because they were whining about getting injured and wanted to sue him (they came round and harrassed him by throwing rocks at his house at night).

If this sort of approach carries on and crime levels drastically rise up because of that, I wouldn't be surprised if paramilitary groups would be formed by local people who want to seriously deal with criminal scum with violent youths sent to hospital on a daily basis, repeat petty offenders having their kneecaps shot off, jury members and defence lawyers intimidated, courthouses bombed, and the worst kind of criminals killed and left hanging from a lampost.

But that would cause more problems than it would solve and wouldn't have happened if law enforcement wasn't so drastically defanged.

reply

[–] Hazzer_99 16 years ago

Well there is no argument from me that you are right on the mark. But that's sort of what pissed me off about the movie. Rather than being along Punisher lines (which was primarily an action movie), or even to a degree Deathwish, Outlaw was more of a documentary following real life events. It was gritty and realistic, to the level that the vigilante protagonists were just a bunch of regular guys playing soldier with no sensible or tactical plan of how to accomplish their goals (which is probably what would end up happening if it was for real). If it's goal was to serve as a sort of warning as to what criminal activity is breading (i.e. vigilantes who would only realistically cause more damage than good) then I guess it wasn’t far off. Unfortunately I found it boring and sickening and all round a pretty annoying script.
But I do agree that shooting criminals on the street would cause chaos, it’s just people venting their anger at the *beep* laws. Quite why the country is getting more and more pathetic no one actually seems to know (like literally no one), but all I can say is that if they keep letting it get worse and worse like this eventually it will all collapse in on itself like in New York back in the sixties or whenever it was, and they had to introduce Martial Law onto the streets which suffice to say was terrifying for everybody. But hey, if it meant that soldiers could kick the *beep* crap out of little rude boi wankers so I don’t have to, bring it on when the time is right I guess.
Until that day, keep safe and run away from all confrontations – your life is not worth losing over a fight, which is why it is worth more than the chavs’ who will attempt to fight you and take it in the first place.

Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...

reply

[–] gregforttmags 16 years ago

Britain should really be more pragmatic about crime, with scumbags allowed to roam free and crime statistics fiddled in a relatively small country, otherwise it'll provoke an extreme response from some segments of the population or/and the State turns Britain into a heavily garrisoned military-police state (as seen in Children of Men and V for Vendetta).

reply

[–] gordon3-1 15 years ago

Quite why the country is getting more and more pathetic no one actually seems to know (like literally no one)

There are quite a few people who know exactly why the country is getting more and more pathetic.
I think you do feel that "why", but just still can’t face certain social taboos and forbidden thoughts.
In time, as things get worse you'll get there....

reply

[–] Hazzer_99 15 years ago

Can't face social taboos? Like what? Most taboos are sexual related like S&M etc. and all the other weird *beep* people get up to behind closed doors. But that's not the issue, it's the fact that so many kids are growing up now without a decent set of parents to install good morals and an understanding, not just obedience, to the law. Stop giving single seventeen year old mothers benefits and encourage people to have kids when they've worked a bit and are a touch older I reckon.

Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...

reply

[–] mosley_15-1 17 years ago

*beep* ell its nt only teenagers all people in this film were adults + the people who need to be shot and beat the crap out of are the drugdealers and *beep* also chav scum

reply

[–] prodijay 17 years ago

The law stinks in every single way. The system doesnt work, and prison is no punishment.
The oldest laws to man say an eye for an eye.All these junkies and pedophiles should be shipped off to Iraq and left on the front line.
It used to be jolly old England!

"you can call me boob if you want to"

reply

[–] mmattagirl 16 years ago

And I agree too, I'm desperately sorry to say. Although incidents such as the awful murder of Lennie James's wife's character by an outrageously powerful crime lord have always been part of the crime scene, it seems as if these days these people are operating with sheer impunity, and acting as if the police do not even exist. More disturbing even than that, is the way that so many people become violent in an instant - take the accident that the young office worker had. Instead of exchanging insurance details, the men in the red car just beat him down - it happens every day. It really does seem as if hard working law abiding citizens are only there to fork over their taxes, and then just shut up and stay in their houses if they want to avoid being beaten to a pulp by some random attacker.

Of course, for dramatic purposes the action was a bit exaggerated, but not as much as one would wish, and I really wonder how much longer the British public are going to put up with this deterioration in civic decency.

reply

[–] witthayu 18 years ago

Must be pretty bad in England if they come up with a movie like that. It's okay to fight back to a certain level. The movie goes a bit far...

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mmbdjh4 17 years ago

No doubt there's injustice in the world, but countering it with violence (like in this film) is just fueling the fire. Fighting violence with violence just leads to retaliation and perpetuates the cycle. Plus, if you use violence, you become just like the people you're trying to stop. Its a shame that so many movies glorify it, there are many young gullible lads out there.

reply

[–] Sharpsoothe 17 years ago

Plus, if you use violence, you become just like the people you're trying to stop.

Um, no you don't, goofclown. Let's consider a scenario where a pack of louts have just decided to stalk a lone passer-by, making their intent to do him harm very obvious. And then one of them ups the ante by striking the passer-by (and I would expect you, if something like this happened in front of you, to tell the lout that fighting non-confrontational behaviour with violence just leads to retaliation and perpetuates the cycle. You would do that, wouldn't you?). At which point the passer-by treats him to some explosive violence that convinces the rest of them not to follow as he leaves the scene.

Now in what sense has the passer-by become just like the people who were attacking him?

Fighting violence with violence just leads to retaliation and perpetuates the cycle.

And likewise, passively allowing a bunch of scumbags to kill you or do you serious harm brings the cycle to a stop. With your death.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sharpsoothe 17 years ago

So my friend, what would you do in the scenario you described? Fight back?

I took you far enough along my hypothetical to both (1) illustrate that explosive violence against the pushiest, mouthiest thug might give pause to the rest of them, so that the fellow can extricate himself from the situation, and (2) give you a chance to answer the question I asked you, which was in what sense has the passer-by become just like the people who were attacking him? Can you answer that one, or would you like to explicitly say you have no decent response?

Fighting back might motivate them to beat you more brutally.

So might running away. So might doing what they want (as evidenced by a story about a pair of 20-something yobs who robbed a young lad of his mobile, walked a little ways away, then decided to run back and beat him up, shouting 'let's kill him').

So you respond by using a gun, and they do the same.

Actually, what tends to happen is that would-be violent criminals decide that attacking or showing a willingness to attack someone who may have a gun is not worth the risk, hence they stay away from people rather than go all kamikaze on them as you might suppose they would do. So you see, 'violence' breeds reluctance to offer violence to those criminals might otherwise view as 'easy prey'.

One alternative is called "moral jiu jitsu" and involves just taking the beating with dignity and not fighting back.

And likewise, passively allowing a bunch of scumbags to kill you or do you serious harm brings the cycle to a stop. With your death.

(Take a beating - passively - with dignity...what an impossibly sick concept)

There is a reason, something wrong with society or their upbringing, that has shaped them.

That reason would be because they enjoy hurting and bullying others. There was actually a 'no *beep* sherlock' report released earlier this year that recorded young criminals telling of how they committed violent crimes for kicks.

So tell us how you'd change that, and once you've told us, go out and record yourself putting it into practice on some real live thugs. Put it on Youtube. Let us see what the results are.

I'd rather persist with nonviolence than resort to futile violence which only causes further suffering.

I see, and you have decided that the lives of someone who'd do you harm is more valuable than your own based on what exactly?

At least I'll only be hurting myself by persisting with nonviolence.

Wrong, you'd be hurting anyone whom that thug that attacked you then went on to attack in similar or worse fashion. How does it solve things to allow thugs to go on thinking that attacking people is safe and convenient, rather than extremely dangerous, as it should be? How are thugs meant to develop the idea that other people are not there for them to abuse*, if no-one acts accordingly with such an idea, by using violence to defend themselves?

*You might of course disagree with the notion that people are not here for the savages to toy with, it would hardly be compatible with a non-violent doctrine. If you do, be brave (snicker) and tell us so as plainly as you like.

reply

[–] mmbdjh4 17 years ago

First off mate, as far as I'm concerned we're having a friendly discussion here. So there is no need for animosity or antagonism, ok.

Ok, so if you were the passer-by you would untilise "explosive violence" against the leader in order to intimidate the others and get them to back off.

Firstly, what makes you think they would be easily intimidated? You are, in fact, using a method (violence) against them which they probably think they have a monopoly on because of their larger numbers (and maybe because they also percieve themselves to be "tough"). Wouldn't you say that its quite illogical to attack your opponent where they are strongest? Its seems naive to assume that they would back off when they have the greater numbers and when you are attacking one of their own. Sure, you might be some massive bloke with awesome fighting skills, but what about the average joe who has no experience in unleashing "exlosive violence"? Should he do what you are prescribing?

Secondly, I'm not sure where you're from, but where I live guns aren't too prevelent, but knives most certainly are. It would only take a split second and next thing you know you've been stabbed.

Thirdly, lets say you succeed and violently repel them. What happens when they see you again? You attacked them (they won't care if you think you were justified) so they will want revenge. I imagine it would be quite unpleasant walking home from work everyday and wondering if that is the day they will take revenge against you.

To answer your question, if you use violence you become just like your violent attackers because you are just as deluded as they are to think that violence will solve your problem. Also, once you enter that cycle of violence (of attack and counter attack) which so often happens in gang wars, you become indistinguishable from them. The question of who started it and who is right loses all meaning and relevance.

"Actually, what tends to happen is that would-be violent criminals decide that attacking or showing a willingness to attack someone who may have a gun is not worth the risk, hence they stay away from people rather than go all kamikaze on them as you might suppose they would do. So you see, 'violence' breeds reluctance to offer violence to those criminals might otherwise view as 'easy prey'".

Carrying a gun certainly won't prevent violence. Guns are made to kill and rarely work as a deterrant because eventually they are always used. It also depends on who you're up against. Sure, if your attackers are just a bunch of unorganised juvenile delinquents, its quite likely that a gun would deter them. However, if they are a street gang, its quite likely that they will have a gun or guns of their own. Even if they don't, they might feel compelled to uphold their repuatation by ambushing you anyway. Take a look at gang warefare all over the world. Despite the casualities, gang members are willing to die for their gang, partly because gang-life is all they know and they feel like its their duty to put their life on the line. For some interesting docos, do a search on youtube for "Ross Kemp on Gangs".

Lets say they do attack and you are forced to shoot and kill a person. Aside from the horror of having killed a fellow human being, how do you think the law will view your actions? If they weren't armed, you're gonna be charged with murder. Even of they were armed with knives or guns, you're gonna have a hell of a time proving self defence in court and you'll probably go to prision for possession of an illegal weapon regardless.

"And likewise, passively allowing a bunch of scumbags to kill you or do you serious harm brings the cycle to a stop. With your death.

(Take a beating - passively - with dignity...what an impossibly sick concept)"

Ok, let me clarify my position. I am viewing this in two phases. The first phase is what you should do when you're attacked, and the second phase involves what you should do after the attack or to prevent the attack before its even happenned.

I am certainly not claiming that reacting nonviolently would solve the problem in the first phase. In theory its possible that your suffering could touch the heart of the attacker, but I agree that this is unlikely. You could use nonviolent communication to verbally resolve the conflict, but again this is unlikely. You could just accept the beating with dignity (and for someone like Gandhi this is considered a success - even if you die - as long as you do it with dignity), and this isnt particularly attractive either.

However, IMO, all of the above options are far better than resorting to violence. If its a gang of thugs, no matter what you do you're gonna get beaten up. Violence wont be able to achieve anything except make the situation worse. You're outnumbered, so you can't win, and you will only make them feel justified in their actions. Your violent response may motivate future attacks. Violence also prevents peaceful relations in the future. If you react nonviolently you leave open the possibility that they might be confused by your response and realise that what they are doing is wrong.

Now, while you probably arent likely to avoid injury during the first phase (the actual attack), you can do something afterwards that might prevent future attacks. I assume you would want to use violence to intimidate them all into submission. Firstly, this isnt likely to happen, and secondly, even if you are successful, you are not addressing the root problems. If you dont address these inderlying problems, your methods will only work until they decide to retalitiate. Don't you see how illogical and hypocritical it is to try and use violence to stop violence? If you can succeed in addressing the underlying problems you can shut down that whole cycle of violence.

In my last post I said that there are reasons why these violent attackers are the way they are. You responded with: “because they enjoy hurting and bullying others". Once again, there are reasons why they enjoy inflicting violence upon others. Its not because they were born evil. This comes to the "nature vs nurture" debate but physical and social scientists agree that the environment is the main determinant in shaping an individual. Who knows, these violent offenders may come from poverty-stricken families. They may have had abusive parents who abused them physically and/or sexually. They may have had a violent upbringing, and hence violence is all they know. They probably have minmimal education and poor employment prospects. They probably find acceptance in a particular gang and are happy to commit violent acts to maintain that. They may have fallen into the drugs culture.

Now I'm not saying that this means they don't need to take responsibility for their actions. They made the wrong choice and should face justice. What I am saying is that in properly identifying these underlying causes, we, as a society, can attempt to address them so that young kids don't turn into thugs.

It is also possible to reform people who have already turned into thugs. They are still human beings and confronting them with violence depreives them of a chance at redemption. With better prospects and hope for the future they could actually do something good with their lives. The most extreme example is that of reformed child soldiers - some who killed dozens of people. A former child soldier from Sierra Leone who was resuced and brought to the U.S. managed to get himself a univeristy degree and write a book about his experiences. You should check it out, its a great read. http://www.amazon.com/Long-Way-Gone-Memoirs-Soldier/dp/0374105235/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9508146-1778325?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190803536&sr=8-1

I'm not saying that any of this is easy and that we can achieve some sort of utopian society, but we can do more to wipe out poverty and improve the education system and set up infrastructure to ensure that children don't fall through the cracks of the system. I'm talking about social reform.

Confronting these thugs with violence won't stem the flow or solve these underlying problems. You would just add to the already thriving culture of violence. Violence is the emotional, short-sighted response. Try and think of the big picture and what actions are best in the long-run.

Take Care,

Marcus

reply

[–] Sharpsoothe 17 years ago

So there is no need for animosity or antagonism, ok.

What are you going to do about it, Eloi?

Firstly, what makes you think they would be easily intimidated?

Because I've seen people use such tactics in real life. Against those who 'had a monopoly on violence'. As opposed to your theory that using violence will 100% result in thugs going kamikaze blood-lust crazy, the reality is that thugs are cowards and do not want to risk getting seriously hurt by their intended victims.

To answer your question, if you use violence you become just like your violent attackers because you are just as deluded as they are to think that violence will solve your problem.

You could have just said this in the first place...

Your statement is completely bogus, however, due to the use of loaded terms like 'deluded', and your complete misapprehension of what actually happens in situations like this. First off, the thugs aren't using violence to 'solve a problem', they're using violence because they like hurting other people. While their victim is using violence to solve a problem, because he's using violence for a more worthy purpose than the thugs are, i.e. self-preservation, there is no moral equivalence to be drawn between him and street thugs. Despite your simple-minded rhetoric about using violence making you just as bad as them, which just isn't true. If you grasped the difference between defensive violence and destructive violence - violence used for both good and ill - you would understand this. That you believe there is no difference is not a sign of intelligent thought.

You reiterate everything you said before about violence being good for nothing more than generating more violence, completely ignoring what I said about fleeing or compliance being no better a manner of dealing with thugs, probably because that in itself reveals that thugs are the ones responsible for their own actions, no-one else. Yet you would like to have us believe that if we raise a hand to thugs, then we are henceforth more responsible for what they do, than they themselves are.

Lastly, you come out with something about how if people defend themselves now, then they will have to worry about thugs later. When you're in a life-threatening situation, unfortunately, that's what you have to do - act now and worry about what might happen in the future later. Not hope that allowing them to kick your head in now will lead to them leaving you alone later, because (A) it won't, you've shown them that attacking you for fun or gain is very safe, so they'll be back to do it later, and (B) you seriously trust violent thugs not to hurt you if you do what they want?

Carrying a gun certainly won't prevent violence. Guns are made to kill and rarely work as a deterrant because eventually they are always used.

Actually, when used in self-defence they are mostly used as a deterrant, because as I mentioned above thugs are cowards who do not want their victims to hurt them. That goes double for intended prey carrying guns. You're talking about places like South Central LA and making the assumption that everywhere there are guns everyone acts like they live there.

Confronting these thugs with violence won't stem the flow or solve these underlying problems.

Actually, since being dangerous prey makes violent thugs less willing to risk their neck to commit crimes against you (since they suddenly decide it's not so important after all), that is a quite good way of bringing about long-term positive change - for the benefit of the general public. Solving the 'underlying problems' you'd have us believe are the operative factor isn't the responsibility of the general public or individual victims.

Violence is the emotional, short-sighted response.

Blah blah blah, violence is short-sighted, preferred by armchair vigilantes...actually, violence is the wiser response, recognising that people are not here to be used by thugs for their amusement or desire, and that anyone who hasn't learnt that can't be talked into it while they're waving a knife at you, so they need to be shown that doing so carries serious risks.

While you might see the merits of such a principle, you'd betray it at the very moment you needed to live by it. People who use violence in self-defence, live by it.

You could use nonviolent communication to verbally resolve the conflict, but again this is unlikely.

It's unlikely because they enjoy hurting people. which is why being attacked or threatened is not the time to try to talk your attacker into changing their life - they're not interested.

Once again, there are reasons why they enjoy inflicting violence upon others.

I identified the problem at a level that allows one to address it. Your response indicates that you have no interest whatsoever in doing so. As anyone would have guessed.

For all your bilge about how defensive violence only leads to more violence (which it oftentimes doesn't), it's amazing how you have no problem with violent thugs thinking that violence is an acceptable way of solving their so-called problems (like not having had enough entertainment that night).

Seriously, would you go up to them and tell them that being violent to innocent people will only lead to a cycle of retaliation and revenge? Oh, I forgot - the victims are supposed to ensure that violence doesn't have any bad consequences for them, which means that the stuff about violence being self-destructive doesn't apply to them. Which means that violence is OK for them, they can be as violent as they like - purely because they're (in your view) violent enough to be able to get away with it.

That makes you a hypocrite, saying that 'violence is self-destructive, but if you're violent enough, you don't have to worry about violence destroying you because your victims will, and should, make sure it doesn't'. Way to come out against violence, champ.

A former child soldier from Sierra Leone

OK, now your mind has taken a walk off the map.

reply

[–] Tina-CHI-Lou 17 years ago

Sorry to but in here but I don't see any animosity or antagonism here, its just different points of view. As an outsider looking in here, I can see both of you have very valid points. I can honestly say I would seek revenge if someone close to me was subjected to vicious violence. As a mother if either of my Children were murdered or beaten by a gang, I would seek revenge most certainly. I also have jumped in when seeing a group of lads picking on some guy, silly as it may have been I didn't think about the outcome it was just instinct I guess. We are after all animals. Maybe being a woman & screaming & swearing like a banshee scared them *beep* I dunno, but they stoppped & I've since seen them all together & they all say "alright" when they see me. I was told after by friends looking on after the event I was stupid but I really didn't think about it, I saw a group of bullys picking on one & saw red. In hindsite it maybe was stupid but "hindsites a wonderful thing"
Theres more & more children going missing, murdered, raped. More & more drug dealers wrecking peoples lives not just the users but the families, more & more elderly people being abused, beaten, raped & robbed. Its a sad state of affairs but as the punishments received can be so mild I can see why people take revenge. But that's just my opinion & like I said you both have very good points & its been interesting reading them although whatever opinions we have, its the old scenario of "you have to actually be in that position to know what you would do".

Supporting & running Charlie Hunnam fansites Since 2001
charliehunnam.com.ar

reply

[–] bertrambunter 17 years ago

Sharpie: Marcus is dangerous. It is ideas such as his that have held sway over the entire culture of the UK for the last four decades. The ultra=liberal, lefty PC, ivory tower academics with their 'new' social science, sociology, have an awful lot to answer for. They have left the rest of us exposed to the unbridled viciousness of a sector of society which has always existed - the violently criminal element. They have fed and nurtured this tendency by telling these 'people' that they are entitled to take their frustrations out on the rest of us, because we may have more than they have, we may be wealthier, live in better homes, enjoy more foreign holidays and speak with 'posher' accents. They have told the thugs that society is to blame for all their ills, and they they bear no personal responsibility for their actions. From their positions of power they have enabled laws to enforce their pernicious POV. They have elevated the concept of 'rights and entitlements' to an unassailable position, and ignored the concept of responsibility. We are all paying now for their actions, and either directly or indirectly they must bear some of the blame for the death of Philip Lawrence and other modern day martyrs to social tinkering.

reply

[–] bertrambunter 17 years ago

But there is need for antagonism and animosity - you are endangering the lives of others by capitulating and submitting to the violence of these thugs. You surely must know that appeasement only feeds a bully's already vastly swollen ego and lust for the blood of others.//you know, peace in our time, and all that. And one swallow does not a summer make, or in the case of the point you are trying to make, one reformed boy soldier from Sierra Leone in comfortable circumstances in NYC does not make for a peaceful law abiding society. I've seen that book in Starbucks, BTW - looks like a crock to me.

You're not talking about social reform - you're talking about rewarding unacceptable downright violent and criminal behaviour - it's a non-starter. These people don't need vacations in Barbados, they need to understand that they cannot have everything they want, even if they think some other people may have it, that if they step out of line they are going to pay heavily, and that people, including the police, are goingto fight back instead of kowtowing to them. There are no excuses for their behaviour - none whatever, and you are as big a 'menace2society' as they are with your wittering on about appeasement and reward.

reply

[–] bertrambunter 17 years ago

Marcus: why on earth should anyone 'take a beating with dignity; - some people who have been beaten by thugs end up in wheelchairs, with failed kidneys, malfunctioning livers, brain damage and by no means least but very much last, dead!! Nice, productive, useful families are destroyed, thrown into poverty, their children robbed of life chances and opportunities. And all because some little thug feels an aggravated sense of relative deprivation, and begrudges you what he thinks you've got, or is just plain drunk or stoned off his head. No, Marcus, indulgence/appeasement such as you suggest only encourages the bullies, you know that. Talk is very cheap - if it happens to you I pray you fight back and come out on top - you have your family and life to consider - they are far more important than some little scrote with a chip on his shoulder. If you don't fight back,if everyone. including the forces of law and order don't fight back, the problem will get worse and worse. Victorian London was a cess pit - things gradually improved and between the wars, despite the continued existence of poverty and deprivation, conditions which you say excuse thuggish behaviour, the UK was a very safe, law abiding place. That is because the law was applied and dealt swiftly and harshly with law breakers.

With regard to the question of deprivation - these young thugs don't know they are born. They come from homes with TVs, cars, PC - they are well fed, they are educated - and it's all free to them. They wouldn't recognize deprivaton if it jumped up and bit them on the a*se. To impute criminal behaviour on the grounds of poverty is a gross insult to all the hard working hard up families who have raised decent kids, and is shameful.

The right of decent hard working law abiding taxpayers to protect and defend themselves must in every circumstance be paramount. Criminals' rights have been taken too far, and victims' rights decreased to such an extent that the victim is now made to feel that his misfortune is his own fault and well deserved. This is a recipe for disaster and leads to scenarios such as that depicted in this movie.

reply

[–] mmattagirl 16 years ago

Marcus"I think we are somewhat past the point of surprising violent thugs with gentle responses. These people (and I use the term loosely) are impressed by nothing but superior force, and while you are lying around on the ground, screaming and screeching for mercy, in floods of blood and tears and peeing and sh**ting yourself (i.e. that is the reality of taking your beating with dignity),and contemplating death or a six month stay in hospital and possible permanent disability, they will be laughingly going on their merry way and looking for their next victim. Now if you had a gun, one or two of them might be lying on the ground in a pile of their own ordure - and in the grand old tradition of 'pour encourager les autres' word might get around and they might begin to draw in their horns. Gradually they would become outnumbered, at first by a few and then by many, and eventually it would be they who were scared to go out at night, and not us. And that is as it should be.

And please, no sanctification of poverty - there are no poor people in the UK, just some vicious, hatefulled, envious and malicious ones.

reply

[–] bertrambunter 17 years ago

If the lone passer=by happens to be carrying a firearm, licensed, and knows how to to use it that would probably settle any arguments. The law in the UK needs changing to enable people to defend themselves against attack in whatever way is available to them. Most non-American posters on imdb hate and loathe the US and everything about it - that much is obvious. However, in the US one thing is quite clear - you have the right to defend yourself, your home, your business, your family or anyone else who is under attack. If intruders enter your home/business, you have the right to blow them away even if they are not armed, and you know why - because they shouldn't be entering your premises without your permission, how are you to know whether they are armed or not, and all you need to say are the five magic words - I feared for my life. What you may not do is chase them down the street and shoot them in the back, of course, because at that time they no longer present an imminent threat to you. You can shoot, stab or mace (in some states) a mugger. Now I know for a fact that the vast, vast majority of people in the US would much rather not have to do any such thing - the point is that they can if they need to, and while there must always be an enquiry, the DA will usually refuse to prosecute a case where it is obvious that the 'victim' has entered property unlawfully. A shop keeper in the US can keep a licensed weapon behind the counter, which sometimes helps. In the UK - no way, just stand there and get mugged or shot. Public opinion is very much on the side of the victim in the US, and it seems that public opinion carries more weight in the US than in the UK. It seems that in the UK the law is very much on the side of the criminal, and the police always seem to cart the homeowner off in handcuffs for defending his property and family - how many instances of that have we seen in the last few years? To all you America haters out there - we can at least defend ourselves and know that we have the right to do so. PS: Vigilantes are, of course, very much frowned upon, but would not be necessary if people were allowed to defend themselves.

reply

[–] dont_diss_dave 16 years ago

What country are you from? What country do you live in?

Trolls Should Be Treated Like Terrorists

reply

[–] bennyoblivion 17 years ago

Prof. Brian Oblivion,

If any of my commonwealth brethren feel like the once implied feeling of safety we had when we leave our homes is strictly a U.K. affliction I assure them, they are hardly alone. I myself live in Canada, and due to a bout of kidney failure in late summer 2000, I've also been tossed into the disabled bin of societies' classifications because of a nerve damaged leg. Most never know it to see me walk, ( It took me 2 years to relearn ), but only because I've had near a decade practice masking the expression of pain when I put weight on it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, I apparently should've lost it from the knee down altogether, and never regained use the way I have according to "specialists". Before I get too far off point allow me to return to the blasphemy at hand. I approx. 18 months ago. I was driving the 1/2 hr drive it takes to get to our local D.(isability)R.(esource)C.(enter), thus DRC. There are actually two professions I'm no longer able to do so with my twenties now gone and behind me,I now find myself starting over (college, retraining, etc.) Didn't make it to the DRC though. I was repeatly accosted by some crackheads in a truck throwing whatever they could at me ( in my car ) in an attempt to bait me into pulling over. Eventually it worked, as over my life I've worked as and am still certified as a personal trainer and have 5 years of mixed martial arts and boxing under my belt, so I do have my limits. Long story short, the ruse worked, and even The Crow himself ( Brandon Lee, R.I.P. ) can't stop bullets at close range, so the aggravated attempted robbery ensued. I stopped counting the stiches once I was well into double digits. Well, nearing 2 years later, despite a guilty verdict, yes it went to court;(I had other ideas but was threatened with abandonment by family if I did. ), and only days ago I received yet another call from our prosecutor, profusely apologizing that yet another remand/adjournment would be necessary and that she'd call when she knew what the new date would be. Since this nightmare has begun, between trial and sentencing, the postponments must be in the double digit range by now, and it seems likely I'll have both my plastic surgery (done) and dental repair (pending) before this gun-slinging crackhead, does a day. AND GET THIS... I've been told by both police and crown counsel alike that merely getting the case the trial was the victory in itself and that we DO NOT HAVE A JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CANADA, WE HAVE A LEGAL SYSTEM, and apparently we as citizens should all be aware that there's a big ***king difference between the two. The perp and his former co-accused, (apparently driving getaway for an armed robbery isn't an offense in Canada, showed up to court SO STONED ONE COULD BARELY HOLD HIS HEAD UP, slurred out such a massive pack of lies about self defense???, that finally even the judge said "Stop, I think I've heard enough." Then still dropped 2 of the 3 charges!!! Now, I just await the final spray of spit in my face when they announce his joke of a sentence, and this clown had 2 solid pages of similar convictions of assau as recent as 10 days prior, and against the police as well. So do not feel left out my U.K. brothers, there's a reason why criminals world over choose the country I love to set up shop in, THE WORD IS OUT. Wanna be a career criminal? Move to Canada, legally, illegally, it doesn't matter, maybe 1 in 100 criminals gets deported after 5-7 years of appeals and such, defenses all paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. My assailant apparently a hails from one of the countless republics left over after the fall of the U.S.S.R. Oh yeah, pre-trial he only got breached 3 times for more drugs, felony flight from the police, etc., so add it all up with the countless adjournments, and I imagine the judge will find that his right to a fair and speedy trial has been violated, so how about time served with a minor apology for all the inconvience. At this point, that'd literally be fine by me if I could just get 3 weapon free rounds in the cage with him. Our local papers are always full of news stories of outraged citizens literally seething that the punk that broke this elderly mother's hip while stealing her purse, gets probation, again, and that the grassroots climate is finally swinging dangerously close to being behind vigilanteism. All because of a sweeping sentiment in our communties that we're at the mercy of the whim of any criminal because of their experiences in our revolving door "legal system" teaches them not to worry about the consequences. I'm quite sure if one were to compare crime and punishment consequnces by country, Canada would come up the biggest joke/loser among developed democratic countries. Unfortunately, approx. 25-30 years ago when Canada was under the thumb of a PM that saw fit during his tenure to literally flip the bird to all Western Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, he introduced a damning piece of legislation called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This Charter goes to great lengths to make sure anyone accused of a crime is afforded every protection under the law, yet not one word to protect the rights of victims of crime. How suprised does our legal system have the right to be when the wave of vigilante justice finally comes? At least I've the comfort of knowing there the trusty charter in place to protect the rights of those vigilantes thanks to our former W.W. II draft dodging, U.S.S.R. educated Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. I could only wish he was atill alive to watch his precious Charter ensure the perpetrator of a violent crime against a loved one of his walk away laughing. Would it undo the harm done to myself, no. Would it put an all day smirk on my face and result in one of the best nights' sleep I've had in ages. I'll allow the reader of this post figure out that one on their own. Oh yes, almost forgot, ALL BLEEDING HEARTS wanting to dare challenge the opinions I've expressed here, do so only until you allow someone to give you a trip to both the plastic surgeon and dentist first. Otherwise, you know not of what you write, so do us both a favor by not insulting my intelligence, and putting a serious question mark of doubt about your own by judging me without taking a stroll in my blood soaked shoes. Besides, next time it could be you or one of your nearest and dearest, and when it does I've seen some typically bleeding heart types dry up real quick when the victim is a loved one of theirs. I know I wouldn't wish the insultingly demeaning situation of the crime committed against me, against another, unless of course that individual feels criminals should be free to shoot, score, assualt and steal at will, especially against the already disabled, consequence free. In that case it only seems fair that those that support the wrist slap revolving door policy for violent repeat felons be first in line to accept the consequences of the turmoil their actions bring to law-abiding citizens and their families.

Doesn't it?

I send Canadian love & compassion to all my Commonwealth brethren who have been similarly victimized.

reply

[–] firefy-3 17 years ago

Lets do it!!!!!

i mean nottingham, is a *beep* no questions bout it,

and i mean, i myself have given many a chav a kickin' after summut they said,

but lets make it Global...

lets start a trend, against pedos/rapist/theifs/and drug dealers, can anyone get me a list of adress's lol??

im up for it

reply

[–] bennyoblivion 17 years ago

Prof. Brian Oblivion,

Cheers from the lawless land that charades as the Global Good Guy, and then turns a blind eye to the plight of it's own, quite often in favor of those here illegally. I just finished watching the six 'o clock news, and I can't help but wonder how many times I'll turn it off in disgsut due to yet another BLEEDIN' HEART story about someone that admittedly entered our country illegally and then the mob of idiot civilians and politicians that cry and wail that they should be allowed to stay. This one's SUPPOSED to be put on a plane Oct 27th, but with the left-wing media all over it, I'll believe it when I see it. Believe me my like-minded brother of the commonwealth although it appears we share similar sentiments about application of appropriate action against the pedos/rapists/theifs/and drug dealers, ( I just copied and pasted your list, suits me fine), against the rest of this predatory human trash. I've always really liked my U.K. "brothers" I grew up playing A LOT of all-star level football, don't worry I wouldn't dare call the world most dominant sport "soccer". This resulted in making some lifelong friends that moved to Canada when they were about ten or so, one hails from Hull, the other from Manchester I believe. As a matter of fact, I recently vidied a film called Green Street Hooligans, which was all about U.K. "death before dishonor" football loyalty to one's local football club, complete with "captains" of every local club that call the shots for his mates he attends the matches with, arranges what rival clubs need some straightening out, etc. It stars Elijah Wood as a "Yank" who's sister gets married in Britain, and quickly gets swept into the whole mentality of the local football culture by befriending the local captain, who happens to be his sister's brother in law, with the older brother who's his sister's husband, was the former local Captain until he got married to her, where he decided to leave "the Life" and his younger brother takes over. I understand in the U.K. it might be found strictly under the title "Hooligans". If you ever get the chance to see it, I'd love to get your take on the accuracy of the film. Well, back to the sad fact and hand. Unfortunately it seems that the police will go after the victims, the so-called "vigilantes" with 10 times the vigor they'd ever pursue the actual criminals. I know they support the idea that some good ol' street justice is a direct reflection on their incompetence and all-around failure to do their job. That gets media attention, they feel embarassed and exposed; the simple solution, turn the victim that fights back into the "real" villian, making ridiculuos claims that actions and ideals such as this will quickly lead to a chaotic, lawless society. It's a total pack lies, but they cannot afford the truth beginning to spread as common knowledge, or it might end up with their butts/jobs on the line. No one's ever gonna convince me that if it were a generally known point of fact to all crackheads that when they pull their cowardly robberies, if the victim decides to come back and put them in the hospital, there'd be a lot less violence related crime being comitted by these fools if they knew that once they start it, they're on their own. The way it is now, they know they've got dual layer protection, first the absurd assembly-line wrist-slapping of our court system, and then that of the police because if one day someone pulls over and performs some reconstruction on them, all of a sudden the police know exactly where to go and what to do to make a quick arrest. I've already been down that road brother, trust me I know. One night with a friend for drinks turned into a very publicly viewed incident of again attempted robbery, except this one didn't have a gun, I did my best to convince the guy to just leave us alone, didn't work of course, and ten seconds or so after assaulting both of us, fight's over and he's unconcious in a rapidly spreading pool of blood he's face down in. It was front page of the biggest paper in the area, printing a totally inaccurate version of the events, looking for me cause he's in a coma. Fortunately he came out 5 sleepless days later, as I had a working actor friend of mine pretend to be his cousin, getting daily updates, knowing that if he dies, the search for me will expand tenfold, and although my assailant was physically bigger/taller than me, considering the outcome, think I'd have been believed if it went to court? I have serious doubts, and voila, there goes countless years of my life in prison. That wasn't my only close call for defending myself either. I started dedicating myself to learning to defend myself and those I cared about by the age of 10 or so, started with boxing, moved on to Wado Ryu Karate, and finally training with two graduate students of UFC Champions Hoyce Gracie, and Ken Shamrock. Even still, like I said before, it doesn't make you bulletproof, plus when you value your clean record for reasons of employment and travel and the scum have a novelette of convictions, what's really a win if I end up in court? I do agree with you on one thing for sure, if these cowards knew that there was a nameless, faceless group of "score-settlers" for the innocent around it would certainly act as 100 times the deterrent our courts or cops do, that's for sure. That's bout it for me, what do you think? By the way, with my earlier reference to "Hooligans" and film in general, some of the "expressions" I used are straight from "A Clockwork Orange", which I've seen about 15 times, so no, Canadians don't generally refer to watching a movie like that, but like I mentioned earlier, growing up with two limeys for best friends I couldn't help but pick up all kinds of slang that just eventually sounded "right" to me. I'd love to visit Britain one day, being the origin of bands like The Clash and The Sex Pistols and especially Black Sabbath/& Ozzy, N. America owes the U.K. big for a lot of what I still listen to today. Thanks again for writing, it's always good to know you're not alone in what you believe. Peace out, hope to hear back.

reply

[–] dr_a_cobb 17 years ago

I agree with the vigilante stance.

Any one with 3 or more serious convictions should be shot in the head.

Easy fix, no more criminals = no more crime

It would solve so many problems overnight, save billions of dollars, and let the hard working, tax paying , law abiding citizens get on with bettering themselves and their community, without having parasite criminals leaching off society .

Survival of the fittest, and survival of the best, we need to slice criminals off like the cancer they are.

If you've got *beep* loads of convictions, no job, no education, no hope, then why should should you have the luxury of living in a society you contribute nothing to, and, in most cases actively destroy.

Shoot the *beep* one by one,

amen to that my brothers

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ajbzerosignal84 17 years ago

"Any one with 3 or more convictions should be shot in the head"
"Easy fix, no more criminals = no more crime"
"Survival of the fittest, and survival of the best"

Either you were joking, being ironic, or you're an utter cretin. Oh I'm sure you'd love that. Living in a fascist state where humans are all equaly treated like expendable trash. Well go on then, fu_ck off to China where they do exactly that. And with that 'survival of the fittest' crap, even Charles Darwin didn't believe that humans should be estinguished so indiscriminatley and childishly.

Monsters aren't born, monsters are made. People aren't born with hatred in their veins, its taught to them. Poeple aren't imprinted with a volatile nature and violent anger, they are driven that way. Just think about that before you label off every criminal as scum that needs to be eradicated, because they wouldn't mind thinking the same about you. See how you are quite alike?

What I find funny is how everyone goes on about how this country has gone to the dogs, what with all the increasing violent crime. Its always been like this. ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE in the whole friggin' world. And no one say it wasn't like this in the 'Good old Days' because they were just as violent as they are today. The socialogical and cultural attitudes may have changed but violence hasn't. There have always been racial violence, riots, rapes, burgularys, murders and beatings as long as there have been humans on this Earth. But we don't dwell on what the crime rates were like back in the 60's because hey! Its yesterday's news ain't it? And don't let the tabloids and news convince you with all these statistics saying crime is more worse than its ever been, because is isn't. When crime rates go down, no-on takes note. But when it goes back up again, everyone goes off like its the worst its ever been. Its headline fodder, plain and simple.

I'd like to start a debate with that user 'sharpsoothe' but that would be futile. He laid out his opinion on street thugs and violence and he most likely won't change that. He's right-wing, and more than most likely, has never really inflicted actual violence against someone else, because his statements are all theory and not from personal experience.
One thing though he didn't lay out though, is that while you may not think you're one of the thugs if you retaliate with violence against them just because of your personal principles, you're gonna have a hard time convincing others that. Because you WILL be looked upon by civilised society with scorn, like you're no better than the thugs themselves.

Another thing is, I don't even know why I'm wasting my time on this forum. Outlaw was a rubbish film made by one of Britain's most puerile, amateur hack filmmakers that goes by the name of Nick Love. It has moronic dialogue, awful cinematography, crap charcterization, plot-holes galore, and basically it deserved all the s_hit that the critics gave it, because of its glorification of viligante violence.
So why I am I writing on this. I dunno really, maybe its because I enjoy laughing off at all the single-minded threads that go on about praising vigilantism and retribution through violence, because the people who think in that utterly pathetic mindset are the only kind of people who would actually enjoy watching this kind of risible junk. And only on the Outlaw forums would you find the perfect place to find these kind of 'discussions'.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sharpsoothe 17 years ago

I'd like to start a debate with that user 'sharpsoothe' but that would be futile. He laid out his opinion on street thugs and violence and he most likely won't change that.

Does that mean that you don't actually have a counter-argument, or would be able to give a good reason why thugs should be treated with a respect their sadistic and violent natures mean they don't deserve?

Please, hurry back.

reply

[–] bertrambunter 17 years ago

Dr Cobb: Very tempting, but really not necessary - all it needs is for the law to be applied sensibly, untainted by left wing PC liberal dross. If criminals realised that they were not going to be given a pass because they're 'poor, ill educated, disgruntled, resentful' but were going to feel the full weight of the law for violent crime, and that the rights of their victims were going to placed before their own, and that their rights were going to be very, very minimal with all that that entails (no law suits for breach of human rights, etc) and no compensation for anything, the only compensation to be given to their victim - then I think perhaps they may calm down a bit. In other words, the police to be allowed to to their job, and we hard working law abiding tax payers need not be put to the trouble and expense of forming vigilante gangs just to keep ourselves safe.

reply

[–] bigmuggs 17 years ago

I have the perfect solution....stick all the bas tards on an island and let them kill each other. Food parcels be dropped on a daily basis but thats the only form of communication with the outside world. Each prisoner is tagged so the authorities know where they are. Once on the island they can't leave and have to spend the rest of their natural life fending for themselves with other sick scumbags.

Once the crime's been committed they lose all human rights in my opinion.

reply

[–] charliecbc 17 years ago

I agree. Is England really as dangerous as the films make it look? It looks like you can't walk down the street without somebody trying to fight you. I guess I have it lucky here in the USA. You never know if someone has a gun. It doesn't matter how tough they are, they can shoot a person dead in their tracks if they attack them. That's why I think people should be allowed to have guns for their personal defense. God bless our guns!

reply

[–] bigmuggs 17 years ago

Its not as dangerous as these films depict however in England it tends to be the victim thats labelled as the bad guy if he/she shoots a criminal. The infamous case was Tony Martin, who shot dead a 15 year old intruder on his premises. The guy had been broken into that many times he lost his patience and duly shot the rat but his accomplice escaped unharmed. Personally i'd have given him a medal and used the example to highlite to fellow scumbag thieves - 'you break into someone's property expect these consequences - you have been warned'

reply

[–] bigbluecheese 17 years ago

"Re: Thats what we should b doin!!!!!!"

too f*@^ing right

ear cataracts?!

reply

[–] lambrettaguy200 17 years ago

In 2005, my wife took part in a costume pageant in Kensington/Chelsea Town Hall in London and before it, she went through 6 weeks of rehearsals in Fulham, so we'd travel up from Essex every week to attend them and it was an exciting time. At each rehearsal, the women taking part went through their paces and some weeks some of the husbands were there to watch or give moral support. The kids would also be there, playing around. Our two came too, our son at that time was aged 11 and daughter 8. I got to chatting sometimes with the husbands and over time, everyone became quite relaxed. One husband, called David, with a daughter, used to chat to me a fair bit and while we were looking at rehearsals, one or two husbands chaperoned all the kids. David became the unofficial babysitter and was happy to entertain the kids and spend time in the garden keeping an eye on them.

On the day of the pageant there were full rehearsals in Kensington & Chelsea Town Hall and we there all day, right up to the time for dressing and the show. Meantime, a group of friends from Essex arrived to give moral support, plus their kids who were friends of ours. About 5.30pm, while my wife was getting ready and I was getting ready too (as her escort onstage), our daughter announced she needed the toilet. My wife said an adult needed to take her. David volunteered to see her over the concourse and wait for her, then take her back.

A little while later, some of our Essex friends came to me, very worried and said I had to come with them, that something had happened. My daughter was being comforted by one of our Essex friends, a wife and mother herself, but our daughter was panicking and crying her eyes out.

One of the Essex women friends said that our daughter had gone into the toilet and a man had followed her in. The Essex woman thought that strange and had gone to the toilet and tried to open the door but couldn't, as the man had locked it. She banged on the door and told the man to open up. She could hear our daughter screaming and crying inside. After the lady raised a ruckus, the man opened the door and our daughter ran to her.

Our Essex friend pointed to the man who was still standing around in the concourse. I looked at the accused man, expecting some sort of dishevelled pervert. The man our friend pointed at was - David. I said she must be mistaken, that was David, a friend who we'd said could go to the toilet with our daughter. But the woman said this guy had gone in too and locked the door. Our daughter being distraught of course meant indeed there was something far wrong. I was in shock after such pleasant times over the weeks, this came like a kick in the stomach. This husband of one of our new friends, a person who had earned our trust over the weeks - the man you would least likely expect etc - it looked like he had been stalking our daughter all along and waiting his chance to pounce.

The police were called and initial statements taken. My wife was informed. Shocked and in tears, she was going to back out of the pageant there and then. But I begged her not to as she had worked so hard and if you let the bastards beat you, what is left in life ? Sounds corny but "the show must go on". Otherwise, if we stopped because of HIM, we'd all dissolve and our family would be damaged for a long time. So she agreed.

Meanwhile, friends chaperoned our son and my daughter and I were driven to the police station. We spent a long time there. Our daughter was so, so brave through it all and she answered all the questions and when asked, told what she could in her own words, but she was very distraught, so it was decide to leave the statement for a day or two. The Metropolitan Police were excellent and sensitive. Our daughter had to go through a medical too. She dod it very bravely and quietly and let the doctor/pathologist do her job. She took swabs to look for signs of the man's sexual presence. I had tears flowing down my face, thinking of what our little girl had gone through and how brave she was now. The man had not (yet ?) forced sex or penetration on her but he did overpower her and pulled down her underwear and licked her genital area. The saliva would show on the swabs.

About 10pm, my daughter became very tearful again and wanted to see her mother. The police agreed, though we would have to go back to the police station again later. The squad car took us to the theatre and we saw the end of the pageant. I was even asked to go on stage with my wife - no-one in the theatre, except for friends and the pervert's wife, knew what was really going on.

A couple of days later, we went to the local police, when the Met Police lady specialist detective met us and took our daughter's statement. She had quietened down over the last couple of days, but this brought it all back. But the little trouper did her best, without any suggestions or prompting.

We were all offered counselling by the police, especially our daughter, but we believed it best for her to put distance between what happened and the future. Sometimes talking about too long it can keep the wound open and being young, we hoped she would forget in time. Happily she has.

The police had a rocktight case and were very confident that the man would go away for a long time (3-5 years). The court had other ideas and the man got just a few months, but because he'd been in remand since the incident and in view of his good behaviour in prison, he was let out, time-served. He had to go on an offenders register for ten years and get counselling for a while, but basically he was free. I believe his wife disowned him, but that wasn't decided the courts of course.

Let me make it clear, I believed that natural justice would take its course and that this man would be put out of circulation for a long time, so that other kids would be safe from him. Let me also make it clear that the police wanted the same as me and when they heard the court's decision, they were disgusted by it. I really believed in the justice of our legal system and depended on its fairness. We were failed.

For us today, our daughter has forgotten it and she doesn't have bad dreams and she's happy - and bossy (but sweet too !) !!

I never wanted revenge against that man, only proper justice. That might seem strange as her father, but I think if he had been a stranger I would have gone mental and kicked the *beep* out of him. But being someone I knew, a friend I thought, I was in shock and felt betrayed and I depended on the law to do the right thing.

Well, the police did the right thing but the law didn't.

We Are The Mods ! We Are The Mods ! We Are - We Are - We Are The Mods ! (Quadrophenia)

reply

[–] charliecbc 17 years ago

Damn dude, I'm sorry that happened. I would love to catch me a pervert and bash the *beep* out of him. Too bad yours lives all the way across the ocean. Anyway, let me tell you a little story that might console you a tiny bit.
My homeboy was in prison up north for armed robbery, I think it was Michigan, and he had just got there and was in the processing unit. It was this row of one man cells with just bars separating him from the next guy. He got to talking to the guy in the cage next to his. The guy was some redneck drunk who said he was drunk one day and raped his 12 year old cousin. He said he didn't know why he did it, he was just drunk. So my friend was like "hey man, come up to the bars I need to whisper something to you." so the guy came right up so his head was just a foot from the bars. My friend grabbed the guy by the hair and slammed his head against the bars half a dozen times until the guys nose was busted open. My friend told him that's what you get for being a pedophile in here, guys like you give crooks a bad name. He told everyone else in the prison that the guy was a sicko pervert, and for the rest of the time my friend was in that prison, every time he saw that pervert the guy had fresh bruises and black eyes. The other inmates kicked the crap out of the dude every chance they got.
Anyway, the bottom line is that pedophiles never ever get the 25 year to life sentences they deserve, but whatever sentence they do serve is a living hell for them because the other inmates take pleasure in bashing the living *beep* out of them on a daily basis. A lot of them even get murdered. Like Jeffrey Dahmer for example. Some other inmate found out who he was and just went and killed his ass. Now that's what we call "Jailhouse Justice!"

reply

[–] mastermind200 16 years ago

Only way to sort these scum bags out is to give them a taste of their own medicine and beat the *beep* out of them hell even cripple them if nessasary the police are too lazy and useless to do anything themselves without 'hard evidence'.

reply

[–] Rjs87 16 years ago

Perhaps you should first be able to spell 'doing'.

reply

[–] kellypi 16 years ago

oh, i smell a spelling nazi! shame on you

anyone in england knows what chavs are. this movie is based on the violence acts that they commit against innocent people. i think its a very brave film. chavs do this crap and just walk away in their cheesy burberry. a most sickening culture. vagrant unruly teens. the females are proud of being sl*ts. the garish gold jewellery. the males and females just attacking and robbing whomever they desire. and even when someone is killed, there are never any witnesses. no evidence to prosecute. people are afraid to come forward, they know what the chavs will do to them.

i truly fear for england and what has happened with the appearance of the chavs

so dont judge this movie if you dont understand whats happening there, if you dont understand chav mentality, and know people who see it on their streets. i do know people in england who thankfully pointed me to a, now difficult to browse, website, chavscum. i remember reading the letters from chavs to the person running the site. illiterates, screaming threats and bull.

so til you know, dont compare it to your country. theyre worse than gangs in america and canada, because they just dont give a *beep* they dont have to, they dont get caught

reply

[–] kellypi 16 years ago

oh, and

"by Rjs87
Perhaps you should first be able to spell 'doing'."

if thats all you care to submit to this discussion, why dont you go back to the elitist hole you crawled out of

you just insulted an imdb user because he spelled something incorrectly. well, not all imdb users are american, some of us type quickly, not all have the same level of education.

so that makes you an elitist who likes to insult others who arent, in your opinion, perfect. thats called classism. much akin to racism.

i type quickly, and so i dont use punctuation when i dont feel its needed. and i have 2nd year university english. so bite that

you all spell colour incorrectly. the true spelling is as i wrote it. flavour, grey.

yes, americans bastardized the true english language. wanna fight about it? oh yeah, already did that. im canadian. we still use the proper form of the language, though sadly the american form is well in place here now. very sad

and why is it that no americans seem to know what a cheque is?

so back into your hole you go :)

reply

[–] kellypi 16 years ago

i loved many of your posts. though some made me very sad that this has effected you. Sharpsoothe right on. you too benny oblivion

and mmbdjh4, marcus, is dangerous, you sound like some new age coward who spends a lot of time meditating on crystals. youre not only a danger to yourself, but to anyone around you if they are attacked. you wouldnt help anyone would you, not if it involved violence, your wife, girlfriend, child, mother, father, friends?

what would you do? philophize with them? tell them the immorality of what theyre doing? lets see, lets talk them out if with gestures of peace. yeah that'll work :D i feel sorry for people like you

ive never hurt anyone, but if someone attacked i sure would not 'go down with dignity'. if anyone hurt any person i love, id attack, damn right.

i remember reading a quote once. its better to live on your feet than to die on your knees. thats the way for me

and bertrambunter, i dont hate and loathe americans. and i certainly agree with you. lets just hope now that obama is in you dont lose that right like we canadians have.

and trust me, canada has never been the weapons haven michael moore would have you believe, i live here and have all of my life. he interviewed drunk people in a bar. honestly i dont mostly believe a thing that man says. you should read the letter he wrote to elián gonzález. the little boy who was so bravely rescued from fidel and his abusive father. and then forced to return by bill clinton and janet reno. it made me ill

im ashamed of my country a lot of the time for its stance on many things. we sent troops to save sadam? thats messed up. sadam was tried by iraquis, not the states.

its time for our governments to stop being wimps like our justice systems.

i sure hope the uk's does. get rid of chav scum

and to those who want to know how to change it? the cops and your governements wont help you. they never do. and the cops and courts?

we change the world. thats the only way its ever happened

you and me, john/jane q. public

we get together and get our point across. the premise of this movie actually :)

so if you dont like it i dont know what to say about you. if youre english you should know better. if youre not look around

a very brave movie and well done

'its better to live on your feet than to die on your knees.'

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rjs87 16 years ago

You are *beep* insane...

I'm from the UK and I certainly know what a chav is. Your assumption that I'm American is based on what exactly? The fact that you harbour a dislike for all Americans (this seems evident looking at the other posts you've made) and you dislike me, therefore I'm American? That's a lot closer to actual racism than the extemely tenuous link you made between my apparent elitism and racism. If it's elitist to type words correctly and find txt spk on a messageboard (where you can preview and edit your posts) slightly annoying, then yeah maybe I'm elitist.

I don't think being able to spell 'doing' is necessarily a sign of intelligence, just an ability to speak English at the level of a nine year old. You're a second year university student? As unlikely as this is, I'll humour you and merely take it as a damning indictment of the Canadian education system.

This movie is awful. The plot was nonsensical, the dialogue was sub-Hollyoaks, the cinematography looked like it came straight out of a sub-par TV murder detective show, and the 'acting'... Well Danny Dyer was in this movie so I don't really need to elaborate.

If you think this movie is good; you A) Are a moron of such incredible proportions that you would pay to see it, B) Are a fascist who used this movie to masturbate to, C) Have never seen moving pictures before and this was a whole new world for you, D) Are twelve years old.

I could make a comment at you about glory holes and gainful employment in response to your 'back into your hole' comment, but I feel I'm above that... Oh wait.

reply

[–] pfalkyk 16 years ago

agreed. i have, for the longest time, advocated "death squads" (such as they have in brazil) trawling our schemes & estates & shooting trouble-makers/thugs/junkies etc on sight. if the law won't protect us. we should abandon all pretence of law & order & protect ourselves. but only through organised retribution. "kill one, you're a murderer. kill many, you're a conqueror. kill 'em all? you're a god"

reply

[–] Blackhawk1989 15 years ago

Don't blame the police for the lack of action against the scumbags who wander the streets, its the idiots in power stripping them of the ability to do anything in order to 'protect' us. Living in Bradford, ive seen a local gay man harrased and attacked by a gang of local asian youths for doing nothing more than telling them to get lost after having things thrown at him walking home. The police know the gang as a group of local dealers but can't touch them for fear of 'offending the asian community'.

I know my neighbours, a good deal of whome are asian and they all agree its an absolute disgrace, but the pencil pushers care more about their graphs and charts than about actual policing. Its the same in all citys, the police are there to deal with crime and protect the public, not pat criminals on the head and build nice relationships with local groups. Sure the Gene Hunt's toed the line, but when they saw trouble they delt with it!

reply

[–] son_of_cheese_messiah 14 years ago

This is one of the saddest but truest threads I've ever read anywhere. The pity is that Britain was once famed throughout the world for its decency, its good manners and its peacefulness. Now we are teetering on the brink of armed vigilante gangs, I have no doubt.
This is a 'tribute' to the misguided policies that have been imposed on ordinary people against their will for the last 50 years. All to satisfy the egos of the liberal elite.
Anyone with eyes can see what is happening, but the BBC, media wing of the elite, keeps churning out propaganda day after day to tell us how wonderful it all is.

reply