I have to agree on Chris's point here about lesser charges and their consequences, and sometimes the greater. Corporal in the army was me... and a private from another regiment (whilst in the Falklands mind you under operational conditions) took offence to my darts play/prowess/flukes. He held that grudge till the end of the competition and then decided that me and him were going to settle it just outside the bar.
It was broken up by blokes bigger and better and more experienced in unarmed combat. But that didn't stop me putting across my (physical) point of view. Next day, I was summoned early by the Logistics Battalion Regimental Sergeant Major - a pretty fecking scary prospect at the time - to be asked what charges I would lay upon this individual following the altercation. I suggested to him that it should be assault. I was immediately shot down in flames and advised that a charge of offering violence might be better under the Queens' Regulations. Here's why... We drunken louts could not prove who threw the first punch, so any Commanding Officer/Judge/Magistrate would have thrown out a charge of assault. But, offering violence to a senior rank - which did not need as much proof - was a much more serious charge, and the bloke ended up in Colchester (the military nick) for 112 days. That's 16 weeks or four months - and the bruises were a lot worse than Kirklands! My RSM was the equivalent of the CPS, and he went for the best charge he could get against an arsehole who up to this point had evaded any charges. I really had no say in the matter, I just followed the advice of a more experienced wiser person - as if I had a choice ? OzPete _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate
