|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 6, 2023 18:39:22 GMT
Now Just Stop Oil sends Starmer 'ransom letter' ordering him to resign if demands not met linkAn activity that would be considered terrorism in many other countries. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 6, 2023 18:44:13 GMT
A man who is attacked or believes that he is about to be attacked may use such force as is both necessary and reasonable in order to defend himself. If that is what he does then he acts lawfully. It follows that a man who starts the violence, the aggressor, cannot rely upon self-defence to render his actions lawful. Quite. That motorcyclist could quite easily claim self defence. I did very similar (except a whole lot more "Robustly") when I found myself trying to get home through the Croydon riots in 2011. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 6, 2023 18:50:23 GMT
A man who is attacked or believes that he is about to be attacked may use such force as is both necessary and reasonable in order to defend himself. If that is what he does then he acts lawfully. It follows that a man who starts the violence, the aggressor, cannot rely upon self-defence to render his actions lawful. Quite. That motorcyclist could quite easily claim self defence. I did very similar (except a whole lot more "Robustly") when I found myself trying to get home through the Croydon riots in 2011. LOL!!! You're right in a way: he could claim self defence. The motorcyclist rode in a slow, careful way towards the protestors. He made intentional contact with one. No physical harm was caused. But it was still assault because he did not have the protestor's express or implied consent to make contact. If an agent of the state (a police officer) had made contact, he would have had a defence to a charge of assault, because the state is permitted by law to physically abate a nuisance. The motorcyclist was not an agent of the state, so he cannot avail of that defence. He committed an assault. Self-defence is so absurd as not to be worth even a moment's consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 18:58:23 GMT
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 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. As I said in the part of my previous post you cut. Here I've added it back in for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 6, 2023 19:00:57 GMT
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. As I said in the part of my previous post you cut. Here I've added it back in for you. And as I have mentioned, it cannot be argued that the woman was assaulting the motorcyclist. She was preventing an assault. That is permitted by law. And the right to abate a public nuisance is directly relevant, contrary to what you claimed, Besty. Assault is not punishable if it is permitted by law. That is, there are a number of defences to assault. If a trespasser comes onto your property, you may physically remove him (assault him) if he does not remove himself within a reasonable time after a warning has been given. Similarly, assault is allowed for the purposes of self defence or the defence of another. A police officer has a defence to assault when effecting an arrest. Here's the important point: the article I linked (which I happily concede may be incomplete) states that only the state can physically abate a public nuisance. That means there is no defence of the kind I mention re trespassers, etc. So, the motorcyclist was committing an assault, and the lady was entitled to commit an assault on the motorcyclist to defend the target of his assault. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 6, 2023 19:13:59 GMT
So your still supporting these total time wasters then darling? These idiot are your beloved leaders paymaster. They say jump and he says how high.
Now Just Stop Oil sends Starmer 'ransom letter' ordering him to resign if demands not met
I'm not supporting anyone here. I'm vaguely interested in the legal aspects. I'm more than happy to be corrected. I'm not in the least suggesting that my post is in any way a definitive statement of the law. Ok so your vague interest in legal matters should start with obstruction of the public highway. DRIVERS were arrested for that for doing 20mph in their fuel tax protest. If 20 is the speed at which one is causing an obstruction, then … |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 6, 2023 19:15:02 GMT
I'm not supporting anyone here. I'm vaguely interested in the legal aspects. I'm more than happy to be corrected. I'm not in the least suggesting that my post is in any way a definitive statement of the law. Ok so your vague interest in legal matters should start with obstruction of the public highway. DRIVERS were arrested for that for doing 20mph in their fuel tax protest. If 20 is the speed at which one is causing an obstruction, then … Jesus Christ! Read my previous posts. I have stated that the protestors were breaking the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 6, 2023 19:23:46 GMT
Ok so your vague interest in legal matters should start with obstruction of the public highway. DRIVERS were arrested for that for doing 20mph in their fuel tax protest. If 20 is the speed at which one is causing an obstruction, then … Jesus Christ! Read my previous posts. I have stated that the protestors were breaking the law. LOL...... is it any wonder lawyers make a fortune out of 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing', it is when DIY lawyers make up the law as they go along. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 6, 2023 19:32:31 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. However, the woman went one step further and grabbed him. They have some very, very interesting things to say about obstructing public highways. Worth a read (about two thirds of thecway down) Given this lot are the loony left’s go-to defence briefs i think we can take it they mean it when they say blocking tbe public highesy niw means jail time whereas it didn’t a few months ago. The only real question is why ate tbe fucking plod so woke They stand round and do fuck all. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 20:19:50 GMT
As I said in the part of my previous post you cut. Here I've added it back in for you. And as I have mentioned, it cannot be argued that the woman was assaulting the motorcyclist. She was preventing an assault. That is permitted by law. And the right to abate a public nuisance is directly relevant, contrary to what you claimed, Besty. Assault is not punishable if it is permitted by law. That is, there are a number of defences to assault. If a trespasser comes onto your property, you may physically remove him (assault him) if he does not remove himself within a reasonable time after a warning has been given. Similarly, assault is allowed for the purposes of self defence or the defence of another. A police officer has a defence to assault when effecting an arrest. Here's the important point: the article I linked (which I happily concede may be incomplete) states that only the state can physically abate a public nuisance. That means there is no defence of the kind I mention re trespassers, etc. So, the motorcyclist was committing an assault, and the lady was entitled to commit an assault on the motorcyclist to defend the target of his assault. You can keep trying the mental gymnastics but at the end of the day the motorcyclist was simply trying to push his way past some people that were in his way. The woman attempted to grab his arm whilst he was in control of a motorbike. The Motorcyclist was in no way attempting to abate a public nuisance, he made no attempt to stop the protestors, The woman lunged towards the motorcyclist and attempted to grab onto his arm. What she did meets the threshold for common assault. Furthermore what she did was dangerous and put her and those around her at risk of serious harm. What she did also meets the test for recklessness as the potential of danger or injury to the public by the woman's action was foreseeable and she did it anyway. There is more than enough going on here to charge the woman under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, Criminal Justice Act 1988, and Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The motorcyclist not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 6, 2023 21:30:18 GMT
And as I have mentioned, it cannot be argued that the woman was assaulting the motorcyclist. She was preventing an assault. That is permitted by law. And the right to abate a public nuisance is directly relevant, contrary to what you claimed, Besty. Assault is not punishable if it is permitted by law. That is, there are a number of defences to assault. If a trespasser comes onto your property, you may physically remove him (assault him) if he does not remove himself within a reasonable time after a warning has been given. Similarly, assault is allowed for the purposes of self defence or the defence of another. A police officer has a defence to assault when effecting an arrest. Here's the important point: the article I linked (which I happily concede may be incomplete) states that only the state can physically abate a public nuisance. That means there is no defence of the kind I mention re trespassers, etc. So, the motorcyclist was committing an assault, and the lady was entitled to commit an assault on the motorcyclist to defend the target of his assault. You can keep trying the mental gymnastics but at the end of the day the motorcyclist was simply trying to push his way past some people that were in his way. The woman attempted to grab his arm whilst he was in control of a motorbike. The Motorcyclist was in no way attempting to abate a public nuisance, he made no attempt to stop the protestors, The woman lunged towards the motorcyclist and attempted to grab onto his arm. What she did meets the threshold for common assault. Furthermore what she did was dangerous and put her and those around her at risk of serious harm. What she did also meets the test for recklessness as the potential of danger or injury to the public by the woman's action was foreseeable and she did it anyway. There is more than enough going on here to charge the woman under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, Criminal Justice Act 1988, and Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The motorcyclist not so much. I completely disagree. I've already outlined the law. I'm completely indifferent whether you accept it, Besty. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 6, 2023 21:32:04 GMT
Jesus Christ! Read my previous posts. I have stated that the protestors were breaking the law. LOL...... is it any wonder lawyers make a fortune out of 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing', it is when DIY lawyers make up the law as they go along. Now, now, Fairy. Positivity attracts positivity. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 6, 2023 21:44:28 GMT
Ok so your vague interest in legal matters should start with obstruction of the public highway. DRIVERS were arrested for that for doing 20mph in their fuel tax protest. If 20 is the speed at which one is causing an obstruction, then … Jesus Christ! Read my previous posts. I have stated that the protestors were breaking the law. I think you’ll find his name is John of Gwent  |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 21:57:08 GMT
You can keep trying the mental gymnastics but at the end of the day the motorcyclist was simply trying to push his way past some people that were in his way. The woman attempted to grab his arm whilst he was in control of a motorbike. The Motorcyclist was in no way attempting to abate a public nuisance, he made no attempt to stop the protestors, The woman lunged towards the motorcyclist and attempted to grab onto his arm. What she did meets the threshold for common assault. Furthermore what she did was dangerous and put her and those around her at risk of serious harm. What she did also meets the test for recklessness as the potential of danger or injury to the public by the woman's action was foreseeable and she did it anyway. There is more than enough going on here to charge the woman under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, Criminal Justice Act 1988, and Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The motorcyclist not so much. I completely disagree. Of course you do |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 6, 2023 21:59:25 GMT
|
|
