|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 6, 2023 17:52:28 GMT
No. Everything depends on the correctness of the article I linked. Of course it doesn't. You interpretation is incorrect. Weaving through a crowd of people with a motorcycle on a road is not an assault (nor is it any form of 'abatement') - in fact, it is far more reasonable to argue that deliberately blocking such progress is assault. I suppose that could be argued if the protestor deliberately stepped in front of his motorcycle. However, the motorcyclist continued to move forward afterwards, which would have made him guilty of an assault. I find these arguments with lay people to be pointless. They never get anywhere. My assessment is based entirely on one article. It's not outside the bounds of probability that there is some ancient statute that allows users of the highway to accost those obstructing the highway. The linked article is clear that it is only the state that may do that. The article could be incomplete. If you know of such a statute, I'd certainly thank you for clearing up the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 17:53:53 GMT
The motorcyclist didn't put anyone at risk. The woman who grabbed the motorcyclists arm while he was in control of a large, powerful motorbike put him, herself and the other protesters in the immediate vicinity at risk of serious harm. Had he lost control because of her action it wouldn't have been pretty Can't you read FFS, I never mentioned the motorcyclist put anyone a risk, it was that silly fuckin old woke fool woman, by grabbing hold of him he could have lost control of his 'lethal weapon' and ploughed into innocent members of the public who weren't part of the criminal protesters, no court in the land would find him guilty of any offense. I can indeed. If you look more closely you'll see I quoted both you and Darling in my post because my comment was pertinent reply to Darling and covered similar territory to your reply, albeit more accurately and a damn site more eloquently. Nowhere in my comment did I say or imply that you mentioned the motorcyclist put anyone at risk. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 6, 2023 17:58:07 GMT
Can't you read FFS, I never mentioned the motorcyclist put anyone a risk, it was that silly fuckin old woke fool woman, by grabbing hold of him he could have lost control of his 'lethal weapon' and ploughed into innocent members of the public who weren't part of the criminal protesters, no court in the land would find him guilty of any offense. I can indeed. If you look more closely you'll see I quoted both you and Darling in my post because my comment was pertinent reply to Darling and covered similar territory to your reply, albeit more accurately and a damn site more eloquently. Nowhere in my comment did I say or imply that you mentioned the motorcyclist put anyone at risk. I apologize, It was a genuine error on my part. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 6, 2023 17:58:09 GMT
My prediction is -
The man on the motorcycle wont be charged with assault because he didn't commit an assault.
The woman also won't be charged with assault, because, although she did commit an assault, she is part of astro-turfed 'movement'
There never seem to be more than about 20 people at these events.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 6, 2023 18:01:42 GMT
My prediction is - The man on the motorcycle wont be charged with assault because he didn't commit an assault. The woman also won't be charged with assault, because, although she did commit an assault, she is part of astro-turfed 'movement' There never seem to be more than about 20 people at these events. As someone with direct experience of your very peculiar ideas of fairness, I predict you will be proved wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 6, 2023 18:02:00 GMT
Of course it doesn't. You interpretation is incorrect. Weaving through a crowd of people with a motorcycle on a road is not an assault (nor is it any form of 'abatement') - in fact, it is far more reasonable to argue that deliberately blocking such progress is assault. I suppose that could be argued if the protestor deliberately stepped in front of his motorcycle. However, the motorcyclist continued to move forward afterwards, which would have made him guilty of an assault. Nothing so technical. If a person or group deliberately blocks your motorcycle and you maneuver and brush by them, you have not committed an assault, they have. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 6, 2023 18:02:37 GMT
I suppose that could be argued if the protestor deliberately stepped in front of his motorcycle. However, the motorcyclist continued to move forward afterwards, which would have made him guilty of an assault. Nothing so technical. If a person or group deliberately blocks your motorcycle and you maneuver and brush by them, you have not committed an assault, they have. See my above posts. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 18:02:42 GMT
Can't you read FFS, I never mentioned the motorcyclist put anyone a risk, it was that silly fuckin old woke fool woman, by grabbing hold of him he could have lost control of his 'lethal weapon' and ploughed into innocent members of the public who weren't part of the criminal protesters, no court in the land would find him guilty of any offense. Sigh! I know right. I think he is still smarting about the fact he thought that the government had the power to deal with the dinghy people by wielding the secretary of state's power to designate no go areas outside of the UK under the terrorism act. How is that going by the way Fairsociety . Have you found any other powers the government has yet? You went very quiet after I pointed out that designated no go areas under the terrorism act only apply to UK citizens and UK residents. If you can find a piece of legislation which makes waiting for the illegal immigration bill to be enacted unnecessary it'd be a real feather in your cap. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 6, 2023 18:09:08 GMT
I know right. I think he is still smarting about the fact he thought that the government had the power to deal with the dinghy people by wielding the secretary of state's power to designate no go areas outside of the UK under the terrorism act. How is that going by the way Fairsociety . Have you found any other powers the government has yet? You went very quiet after I pointed out that designated no go areas under the terrorism act only apply to UK citizens and UK residents. If you can find a piece of legislation which makes waiting for the illegal immigration bill to be enacted unnecessary it'd be a real feather in your cap. Why did you comment under Darling post 'Sigh'? you could have directly posted under my original post... but hey-ho
We have laws in place that stop the likes of Begum from entering the UK, but if she arrives illegal in a dinghy from France we have no way of stopping her reaching the UK.
So YES, absolutely the UK have the powers in place to use these laws to STOP any suspected terrorist from entering the UK, legally or illegally, but if we don't know who is in these Dinghy's then the UK law must use that power to STOP all illegals entering the UK. The law is there, it's just not being used.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 18:10:43 GMT
The motorcyclist didn't put anyone at risk. The woman who grabbed the motorcyclists arm while he was in control of a large, powerful motorbike put him, herself and the other protesters in the immediate vicinity at risk of serious harm. Had he lost control because of her action it wouldn't have been pretty What does that have to do with anything? The motorcyclist was physically abating a public nuisance. If the linked article is correct, he had no legal right to do that. According to the article, only the state (the police) are entitled to do that. Because he was not legally entitled to make physical contact with the protestor, he committed an assault. The lady was perfectly entitled to come to the assistance of someone who was being assaulted. what it has to do with anything is that the motorcyclist was careful, in control and did not make any overly aggressive or threatening moves, nor did he put anyone at risk of harm. What he did was not much different to someone being deliberate and purposeful as they move through a crowd of people. The woman grabbed the arm of the motorcyclist. This put his control of the vehicle in jeopardy and that motorcycle out of control with people nearby put people at risk of injury. It was an aggressive and threatening move. If you look at the offense of assault what that woman did could easily be argued to meet the threshold for her actions to be considered assault, whereas it would be a real stretch to argue what the motorcyclist did amounted to assault. The article is irrelevant, public nuisance and abatement thereof is too |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 6, 2023 18:12:44 GMT
I know right. I think he is still smarting about the fact he thought that the government had the power to deal with the dinghy people by wielding the secretary of state's power to designate no go areas outside of the UK under the terrorism act. How is that going by the way Fairsociety . Have you found any other powers the government has yet? You went very quiet after I pointed out that designated no go areas under the terrorism act only apply to UK citizens and UK residents. If you can find a piece of legislation which makes waiting for the illegal immigration bill to be enacted unnecessary it'd be a real feather in your cap. Why did you comment under Darling post 'Sigh'? you could have directly posted under my original post... but hey-ho
We have laws in place that stop the likes of Begum from entering the UK, but if she arrives illegal in a dinghy from France we have no way of stopping her reaching the UK.
So YES, absolutely the UK have the powers in place to use these laws to STOP any suspected terrorist from entering the UK, legally or illegally, but if we don't know who is in these Dinghy's then the UK law must use that power to STOP all illegals entering the UK. The law is there, it's just not being used.
There is a difference she had her passport removed, so lost her UK rights as a UK citizen, the illegal immigrants are smart enough to dump anything that proves who they are or might be. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 6, 2023 18:16:24 GMT
Why did you comment under Darling post 'Sigh'? you could have directly posted under my original post... but hey-ho
We have laws in place that stop the likes of Begum from entering the UK, but if she arrives illegal in a dinghy from France we have no way of stopping her reaching the UK.
So YES, absolutely the UK have the powers in place to use these laws to STOP any suspected terrorist from entering the UK, legally or illegally, but if we don't know who is in these Dinghy's then the UK law must use that power to STOP all illegals entering the UK. The law is there, it's just not being used.
There is a difference she had her passport removed, so lost her UK rights as a UK citizen, the illegal immigrants are smart enough to dump anything that proves who they are or might be. But she can do the same, it's a legal loophole that terrorist will exploit if this UK government don't get to grips with it NOW. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 6, 2023 18:30:59 GMT
What does that have to do with anything? The motorcyclist was physically abating a public nuisance. If the linked article is correct, he had no legal right to do that. According to the article, only the state (the police) are entitled to do that. Because he was not legally entitled to make physical contact with the protestor, he committed an assault. The lady was perfectly entitled to come to the assistance of someone who was being assaulted. what it has to do with anything is that the motorcyclist was careful, in control and did not make any overly aggressive or threatening moves, nor did he put anyone at risk of harm. What he did was not much different to someone being deliberate and purposeful as they move through a crowd of people. So what? It's still assault. If you brush the back of your hand against someone's face in a loving way, that will be assault if that person hasn't consented. It doesn't matter that that person was not physically harmed or that you had good intentions. In this case, there was an assault. That assault was ongoing, so the lady was perfectly entitled to come to her friend's assistance. The protestors were breaking the law. Public nuisance is a crime. But members of the public are not allowed to assault persons committing a public nuisance. The protestors committed a public nuisance, and the motorcyclist committed an assault. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 6, 2023 18:31:18 GMT
There is a difference she had her passport removed, so lost her UK rights as a UK citizen, the illegal immigrants are smart enough to dump anything that proves who they are or might be. But she can do the same, it's a legal loophole that terrorist will exploit if this UK government don't get to grips with it NOW. In all honesty the slow wheels of the Westminster party have already let that boat sail. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 6, 2023 18:32:27 GMT
But she can do the same, it's a legal loophole that terrorist will exploit if this UK government don't get to grips with it NOW. In all honesty the slow wheels of the Westminster party have already let that boat sail. True, it's like locking the gate once the horse has bolted. |
|
