Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I sincerely hope a trio of knife-wielding men never try to get into my home.


Should a trio of knife-wielding men try to get into my home, I've no idea what I might do. However, being a reasonable person with no history of engagement in violent incidents to my name (not since I tried to hit my brother back in '87 anyway), I would like to think that my actions - whether cowering in the corner and simply phoning the police, or heroically disarming one of the assailants and despatching all three in a nailbiting match to the death - would be considered reasonable, on account of circumstance - and because I'm a reasonable person.


This is slightly, but significantly different position to predetermining what you'll do to someone before it's even happened, not to mention moaning about how you might get prosecuted for it and it aint fair. Scary.

I'm not sure anyone is predicting a 'plan' of what they will do, just empathising with the householder's plight and perhaps concurring with his response. No one knows what they will do on the day but most people have a view on roughly the nature of what their response might be, just like those who reckon they would be sure to follow the law down to the very letter, not applying too much force (but just enough to complete the job) if they were burgled and their family threatened.

I can't help the feeling that the person who declares his intention that a burglar 'get everything that's coming to him' might also the same person who wants me 'to get everything that's coming to me' if I accidentally spill his pint down the pub.


That's usually the way these things work.

I'd be worried about my reaction if someone threatened my kids in that way, but I have anger management issues, so am not the reasonable person that *Bob* may be, so therefore, my reaction may not be reasonable. I don't think I would have caved the guys head in quite so badly as the man who chased the burglar and broke his cricket bat on his head, but everyone's anger takes different lengths of time to calm down.


I think it is right to punish someone who commits a revenge attack, but instant reactions to threat and fear of death by someone protecting their family are a different thing. It appears that the jury thought this was a revenge attack, rather than an instant reaction to the threat from the burglars and if that is the case, the guy is right to be punished. I'd still hate to find myself in that position, and would be worried about my own reactions.

Im not convinced that if I spilled the pint of the chap(s) above who suggested what their reaction may be to the burglar that they would assault me.


One is a reaction to an everyday accident which is almost inevitable at some pint in your life and can be resolved with ?3.50.

The other is a reaction to a life threatening and traumatic event laid on you by someone of evil intent.

I think if someone threatened to kill my family and I got my hands on them I could quite happily kill them without feeling a jot of remorse. Hopefully the rational side of my brain would switch on and make me realise that I should rather let the law deal with them or I may face charges. But who can say unless they have been in the situation. Either way I can fully understand this guy?s actions.


But you (or me or the police) can?t run after someone and use more than reasonable force to restrain them. That is a very long running tenant of law. Whether it is right or wrong is a debatable issue but it is not some newfangled, bleeding heart liberals broken Britain bullshit. It is the law.


I do think this guy should have got a suspended sentence though but then I?m not a judge am I.

kidkruger - you can't on the one hand have people saying:


ianeasy: I would have beat the burglar senseles and gone to prison


KidKruger: If I had the guts that guy had I am sure I would also be getting 30 months


and then a few posts later you say: "I'm not sure anyone is predicting a 'plan' of what they will do, just empathising with the householder's plight and perhaps concurring with his response."


Those responses are as close to "a plan" as you can get.


As for quids and his need to pick fights when they aren't there, I have no idea why he does that. Talking about "liberals" and making out that "they" are boo hooing for the victim is poor form

Sean,


I appreciate your guidance re what I can't do.


we can get into the semantics if you want, i have explained in previous post what I think people meant (including myself)

most people don't start a solid plan with "If I had the guts...." but perhaps that's our distinct interpretation of what constitues a plan.

I think you're making the assumption I WOULD have the guts and be able to carry out 'the plan', however that is your assumption not mine, as i think i made clear I do not know I could actually do it and the word 'If' is the give-away indicator


you cannot change my view but feel free to pick me up on the style i articulated my thoughts, goo dluck picking it apart

By saying "you can't say x and then go on to say y" I'm not forbidding anything - I'm saying it's not a consistent argument, that's all


I'm not making any assumptions about you at all, so no need to put words in my mouth. I'm simply reading what you are writing


But let's just say the world changes and people are allowed, without penalty, to dispense justice. Can you not see the trouble that would bring and how it would be much worse than the system we have now (for all it's faults)?

can't help the feeling that the person who declares his intention that a burglar 'get everything that's coming to him' might also the same person who wants me 'to get everything that's coming to me' if I accidentally spill his pint down the pub.


That's usually the way these things work.


-----------------------------------------


If thats me your reffering to bob don't worry I haven't ever had a fight in a pub in my life and to be honest the last fight I did have was trying to stop a girl getting mugged and for that I got a good kicking.

The point that I was making is that there is something quite instinctive and primeval about protecting your family from harm and that instinct can make thoroughly reasonable people do extraordinary things. Even a fluffed up hug monkey like me.

Unfortunately you cant hug a burglar and make them feel punished and hugs wont save your family from a knife weilding maniac.


hugs as ever

The problem with reasonable force is that burglars, muggers etc don't tend to use it. Therefore using it in response is pretty useless.


Either hand over your cash/wallet/belongings or strike back in a manner over and above what the assailant themselves are comfortable with seems to be the option. Most people are unable to do the latter, so quite sensibly opt for the former, and I would not have any issue with anyone who opted to do that at all.


Violence & threat are about boundaries and comfort zones. Most people are not comfortable with even the merest suggestion of either, hence why your common and garden mugger gets a pretty easy nights work usually.


To me if someone enters your home and threatens you or your family, then all bets are off as far as what might be considered reasonable force.


I've had two intruders enter my back garden since I've lived here. Both times I am pretty sure they had wished they had chosen another house, and I don't give an Aylesbury duck about that.

A man caught two burglers at his house, he ordered them into the boot of his rolls royce and took them to the police station.


The police knicked him on charges of kidnapping, which subsequently caused a local outcry after a local paper took an


interest, so they dropped the charges.


It takes some working out what one is allowed to do, one things for sure the police do not like being humiliated


by 'have a go' types.

It's crazy.


You've just been tied-up and threatened with knives, you chase the guys once you've escaped your bonds and take something to counter the knives which you doubt they have by now deposited in the knife-amnesty skip so that you don't get hurt.


When these guys picked up their cricket bat and a pole as weapons they were still acting in self defense because if they apprehended the burglar(a) they knew they were armed but perhaps they did not know they would serioulsy hurt anyone however they knew they needed something to keep the knife-holders at bay.


It turns out the thief took a hiding, after 50+ offences (how many unconvicted offences ?) he finally got caught, not just caught but caught by someone he'd just tied up and whose family he'd threatened to kill. yeah let's alter the laws because the 2 brothers are getting a hard time of this.

What kind of a society are we living in where you can't chase someone out of your house and down the street and then hit them repeatedly on the head with a cricket bat until their head cracks open with the full approval of the law?


The right one, I think.


The law exists to differentiate between justice and revenge - because unfortunately, there are too many people incapable of distinguishing between the two themselves, whether in the heat of the moment or not.


When those two guys caught-up with that one burglar, self-defence of person and property turned-into revenge.. and the law simply has recognise that in one way or another. I think the severity of the sentence is unfair but that doesn't mean to say I think they deserve a medal and tickertape parade.


Incidentally, if my family and I had just been tied-up and threatened with death by three armed men, the last thing I'm sure they'd want to see me do (should I manage to break free) is run out of the door after them with a bat. But then I guess I'm probably not Rambo enough for that sort-of thing anyway.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What kind of a society are we living in where you

> can't chase someone out of your house and down the

> street and then hit them repeatedly on the head

> with a cricket bat until their head cracks open

> with the full approval of the law?

>

> The right one, I think.

>

> The law exists to differentiate between justice

> and revenge - because unfortunately, there are too

> many people incapable of distinguishing between

> the two themselves, whether in the heat of the

> moment or not.

>

> When those two guys caught-up with that one

> burglar, self-defence of person and property

> turned-into revenge.. and the law simply has

> recognise that in one way or another. I think the

> severity of the sentence is unfair but that

> doesn't mean to say I think they deserve a medal

> and tickertape parade.

>

> Incidentally, if my family and I had just been

> tied-up and threatened with death by three armed

> men, the last thing I'm sure they'd want to see me

> do (should I manage to break free) is run out of

> the door after them with a bat. But then I guess

> I'm probably not Rambo enough for that sort-of

> thing anyway.


Fully agree with the sentiment *Bob* but not the reality. As I mused earlier, the problem with reasonable force is that criminals never use it.


I agree that there should be boundaries of some description by law, but also think that the psychological impact of having your home invaded leaves a deep, deep scar on the honest person's psyche and well being.


I'd say that you are entitled to defend your home to the extent that the intruder is incapacitated and their threat countered. Usually that means a fairly violent exchange, during which you can be sure the intruder will not have reasonable force at the forefront of their thoughts. Tell you the truth, I wouldn't either if he was in my house.

But this guy was no longer in the house and the "spur of the moment" defence involved the sudden appearance of a car full of people. This is a long way from hitting an intruder with a golf club in the living room

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...