theives pick on wrong vehicle

Strider590

adouglasmhor wrote: »

!!!!!! is a "surveillanced" team? Surveillance team maybe?
A bone article from a bone paper for boneheads.
The lads also did not each have a machine gun as a machine gun is a support weapon not an individual weapon, maybe they mean a submachine gun/automatic carbine. Anyone who served in the SAS or any Combat or Combat Support arm would know the difference.

More likely to be specialist compact weapons like the Heckler & Koch MP5 or close derivatives with a couple of combat shotguns for "crowd control".....
Certainly not "machine guns", not even light infantry weapons like the SA80.

But, I still think it's a load of nonsense dreamed up to sell papers. Ask someone from the SAS and prove me wrong.... :rotfl:

fadetogrey

Strider590 wrote: »

More likely to be specialist compact weapons like the Heckler & Koch MP5 or close derivatives with a couple of combat shotguns for "crowd control".....
Certainly not "machine guns", not even light infantry weapons like the SA80.

But, I still think it's a load of nonsense dreamed up to sell papers. Ask someone from the SAS and prove me wrong.... :rotfl:

as a serving member of the SAS I can confirm thats true.SAS (strong ale society):cool::cool:

michaelvintner

broadsword79 wrote: »

Queue court case by a couple of scallies against said SAS officer for assault.

I have no sympathy for the criminals but they should have been apprehended, and charged as such, rather than being beaten by a member of the armed forces.

No they should have been given a good beating by the SAS. What are the police going to do nowdays. Even if they do manage to build a good case against the low life criminal scum some 897 year old deranged judge sends them on holiday to Spain for two weeks at the taxpayers expense.

I demand more SAS people in vans ready to pounce on low life ready to give them a good beating. It will have more impact on them than the slight slap on the wrist that the legal system gives them at the moment.

mustrum_ridcully

vaio wrote: »

And probably not coincidental that it appeared at the same time as the recruitment crisis scare stories for the SAS/SBS either

Oooh you cynic

Bit of coincidence though eh? :think:

pulliptears

Many years ago my cousin was a biker for Staffs Police, off out on a raid one morning he was just ahead of a white van full of his colleagues in riot gear when he was knocked off his bike by a young lad not paying much attention to where he was driving. I'm told the look on the lads face when a van full of geared up Police appeared was priceless

Fortunately my cousin was not injured and the squad went off to finish the raid.

bluenoseam

adouglasmhor wrote: »

!!!!!! is a "surveillanced" team? Surveillance team maybe?
A bone article from a bone paper for boneheads.
The lads also did not each have a machine gun as a machine gun is a support weapon not an individual weapon, maybe they mean a submachine gun/automatic carbine. Anyone who served in the SAS or any Combat or Combat Support arm would know the difference.

If you are an obnoxious lawbreaking gobsh*te it doesn't matter what type of gun it is, frankly so long as it looks realistic to the majority of as was put in the article "scrotes" then one would suggest clean undercrackers would be required.

I do however struggle to believe it happened since they (SAS) would likely be able to file a report with the police & given the previous infractions would be easy to prove would likely NOT be required to present in court i'd assume.

adouglasmhor

bluenoseam wrote: »

If you are an obnoxious lawbreaking gobsh*te it doesn't matter what type of gun it is*, frankly so long as it looks realistic to the majority of as was put in the article "scrotes" then one would suggest clean undercrackers would be required.

I do however struggle to believe it happened since they (SAS) would likely be able to file a report with the police & given the previous infractions would be easy to prove would likely NOT be required to present in court i'd assume.

A machine gun is something you get down on the ground behind; bit awkward pointing it at chavs.


Like I said an Army source like they alluded to would know the difference.

mcjordi

who cares what machine gun they had they should of used it.. little twerps.. hope they at least broke the theiving gits hands..

adouglasmhor

mcjordi wrote: »

who cares what machine gun they had they should of used it.. little twerps.. hope they at least broke the theiving gits hands..

What a daftie, it's not true and the fact they talk about an army source using words no tom would use proves it to anyone with a functioning brain.

I see we have plenty of people willing to swallow anything on this thread though.

nexus2011

Fictional story.This would never come to press and if it was true it would be the Spooks or SRR not the SAS.