Two protesters were “reasonable” in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum” outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
Judgment available here: https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx
Two protesters were reasonable in calling Iain Duncan Smith Tory
scum outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
Judgment available here: >https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx
On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:06:23 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Two protesters were reasonable in calling Iain Duncan Smith Tory
scum outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
Judgment available here:
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx
Do you know to what extent the recent Tory anti-demonstration laws may have >modified the reasonableness defence the magistrate accepted and the appeal >court confirmed?
On 21 Nov 2023 20:46:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:06:23 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Two protesters were reasonable in calling Iain Duncan Smith Tory
scum outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
Judgment available here:
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx
Do you know to what extent the recent Tory anti-demonstration laws may have >>modified the reasonableness defence the magistrate accepted and the appeal >>court confirmed?
I don't think it would make any difference to this case. The question wasn't whether they were acting lawfully by protesting, it was whether they were acting lawfully in the words they used. Specifically, in this case, it essentially boiled down to whether "Tory scum" was threatening, harassing or distressing (unlawful), or merely offensive (lawful). The court concluded that it was the latter. It is not unreasonable to be offensive, even if many people may, with justification, find it distasteful.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> Wrote in message:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 19:06:23 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>Two protesters were reasonable in calling Iain Duncan Smith Tory
scum outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
Judgment available here: >>https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be offensive. Seems the right >result, to me. Whether someone is justified in using offensive and insulting >language is a matter for public opinion, not a court.
Mark
Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't
even allowed to call politicians rude names?
On 22/11/2023 15:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't
even allowed to call politicians rude names?
"Civilised"?
It's not so much that it shouldn't be allowed as that we should exercise a degree of self-restraint in the language we use to describe
those we disagree with. Those who fail in that regard should be called
out for it -- not least by those on the same side as the targets.
On 2023-11-23, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/11/2023 15:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't
even allowed to call politicians rude names?
"Civilised"?No - in fact quite the opposite.
It's not so much that it shouldn't be allowed as that we shouldThe Tory scum have gone far, far beyond the realm of "polite
exercise a degree of self-restraint in the language we use to describe those we disagree with. Those who fail in that regard should be called
out for it -- not least by those on the same side as the targets.
disagreement" or "agree to disagree". They are responsible for
the deaths of, at least, tens of thousands of people, and for
the on-going destruction of the country. "Restraint" is not
"civilised", it is dishonesty.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 19:06:23 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Two protesters were ?reasonable? in calling Iain Duncan Smith ?Tory
scum? outside the Conservative party conference, the high court has
ruled, in a rejection of an attempt to overturn their acquittal.
Judgment available here: >>https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/download/565/dpp-manchester-co-763-2023-ac-2022-lon-000887-judgment-for-hand-down-211123-approved.docx
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be offensive. Seems the right result, to me. Whether someone is justified in using offensive and insulting language is a matter for public opinion, not a court.
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob,
one of whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them
all with threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
There were two women with IDS, too. What happened to all the stuff we've been >hearing about zero tolerance for violence against women?
Does it not apply when the women are Tory Cunts?
What is interesting, though, is that the defendants apparently
followed him (albeit at a distance) whilst repeating the abuse.
I could imagine that there must be a point whereby following a
person down a street whilst verbally abusing them crosses the
line in respect of this particular offence. Evidently the judge
didn't think that line had been crossed, but there must be a
point where the recipient would start to feel alarmed and/or
distressed - I suppose the issue would be whether the perpetrator
intends such alarm and/or distress.
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 06:16:56 -0800 (PST), Brian W
<brianwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What is interesting, though, is that the defendants apparentlyContext matters. Politicians are used to being verbally abused. Whether they should be or not is, of course, a valid point of debate, but the fact
followed him (albeit at a distance) whilst repeating the abuse.
I could imagine that there must be a point whereby following a
person down a street whilst verbally abusing them crosses the
line in respect of this particular offence. Evidently the judge
didn't think that line had been crossed, but there must be a
point where the recipient would start to feel alarmed and/or
distressed - I suppose the issue would be whether the perpetrator
intends such alarm and/or distress.
remains that they are. So it isn't going to come as a surprise to them.
In particular, at major party conferences there is always a significant gathering of protestors. Running the gauntlet of chanting protestors is normal for conference attendees. I've done it myself. But it's all theatre. There is no intent to cause harm to attendees, even high profile ones. It's as much about getting noticed by the media as it is by the people you're yelling at. And, again, the more experienced a politician you are, the more you will be aware of this. So the prospect of the target of such verbal
abuse feeling genuinely threatened is low. They may well, of course, feel annoyed. But the line, on the whole, lies somewhere between causing
annoyance and causing distress. The type of protest engaged in in this case does not cross it.
I was at a party conference a few years ago (quite possibly the one which
led to this case, I can't remember precisely) when we were faced with the usual throng of screaming protestors as we entered and left the venue. On
the last day, as we were leaving, I walked up to one of the protestors,
shook his hand and said "Thanks for coming, it wouldn't be the same without you". He looked at me and said "thanks" in return, almost automatically, before realising that he'd just accidentally fraternised with the enemy and turned and walked away.
Mark
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
That is, obviously, unfortunate, and may well have contributed to
their rather unwise decision to try to charge the others with
something else. But the fact that one individual did assault him
doesn't make the rest guilty. There's no evidence that they were
acting in concert, it's more likely that the cone wielder just
happened to find himself in the right (or wrong) place at the right
(or wrong) time.
[SNIP}
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Ja...@handsome.com (Handsome Jack) wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob,The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him. That is, obviously, unfortunate, and may well have contributed to their rather unwise decision
one of whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them
all with threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
to try to charge the others with something else. But the fact that one individual did assault him doesn't make the rest guilty. There's no evidence that they were acting in concert, it's more likely that the cone wielder
just happened to find himself in the right (or wrong) place at the right (or wrong) time.
There were two women with IDS, too. What happened to all the stuff we've beenThe court concluded that it wasn't violence.
hearing about zero tolerance for violence against women?
Does it not apply when the women are Tory Cunts?Tory scum, if you read the report again.
Mark
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 +0000, Pamela wrote:
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
from which collective punishment seems a logical step.
Lidice ?
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 +0000, Pamela wrote:
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
from which collective punishment seems a logical step.
Lidice ?
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
On 20:47 24 Nov 2023, Jethro_uk said:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 +0000, Pamela wrote:
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Ja...@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of >>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually >>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
from which collective punishment seems a logical step.
Lidice ?I was thinking whether this case could be considered a joint enterprise.
No - in fact quite the opposite.Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't"Civilised"?
even allowed to call politicians rude names?
It's not so much that it shouldn't be allowed as that we shouldThe Tory scum have gone far, far beyond the realm of "polite
exercise a degree of self-restraint in the language we use to describe
those we disagree with. Those who fail in that regard should be called
out for it -- not least by those on the same side as the targets.
disagreement" or "agree to disagree". They are responsible for
the deaths of, at least, tens of thousands of people, and for
the on-going destruction of the country.
"Restraint" is not
"civilised", it is dishonesty.
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Ja...@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
That is, obviously, unfortunate, and may well have contributed to
their rather unwise decision to try to charge the others with
something else. But the fact that one individual did assault him
doesn't make the rest guilty. There's no evidence that they were
acting in concert, it's more likely that the cone wielder just
happened to find himself in the right (or wrong) place at the right
(or wrong) time.
[SNIP}
On 23/11/2023 13:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
No - in fact quite the opposite.Indeed - what sort of snowflake society would we be if we weren't"Civilised"?
even allowed to call politicians rude names?
But calling people [not only politicians, but anyone with or about
whom you are having a discussion] rude names does nothing to advance your argument and alienates anyone who does not already agree with you. Indeed, name-calling suggests that you have no sensible argument to propose.
It's not so much that it shouldn't be allowed as that we shouldThe Tory scum have gone far, far beyond the realm of "polite
exercise a degree of self-restraint in the language we use to describe
those we disagree with. Those who fail in that regard should be called
out for it -- not least by those on the same side as the targets.
disagreement" or "agree to disagree". They are responsible for
the deaths of, at least, tens of thousands of people, and for
the on-going destruction of the country.
So are you claiming, extraordinarily, that "they" deliberately set
out to slaughter people and destroy the country [examples?];
or merely that they made [in your opinion] mistakes and that the
policies of other parties would [in your opinion] have been better?
Assuming the latter, that is the sort of thing that gets debated at a
General Election. Better that. and a secret ballot, than mob violence whipped up by demagogues shouting "scum, scum" or worse, and
disrupting meetings.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 GMT, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
Only if it can be proven that the group were acting collectively.
On Friday, 24 November 2023 at 22:42:29 UTC, Pamela wrote:
On 20:47 24 Nov 2023, Jethro_uk said:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 +0000, Pamela wrote:I was thinking whether this case could be considered a joint enterprise.
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Ja...@handsome.com wrote: >>>>>>
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of >>>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually >>>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
from which collective punishment seems a logical step.
Lidice ?
I don't think you can really make a case for that unless you can prove there was some sort of common purpose to make the assault, rather than just
one of them doing their own thing.
Did I say that?[...] They are responsible forSo are you claiming, extraordinarily, that "they" deliberately set
the deaths of, at least, tens of thousands of people, and for
the on-going destruction of the country.
out to slaughter people and destroy the country [examples?];
or merely that they made [in your opinion] mistakes and that theNo, you don't get to "debate" whether killing tens of thousands of
policies of other parties would [in your opinion] have been better?
Assuming the latter, that is the sort of thing that gets debated at a
General Election. Better that. and a secret ballot, than mob violence
whipped up by demagogues shouting "scum, scum" or worse, and
disrupting meetings.
people was "reasonable policy", or whether illegally looting the
country for the corrupt enrichment of your friends was just something politicians do. You get to argue whether your term of imprisonment
should be very long or merely long.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 GMT, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> >wrote:
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of
whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually
assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
Only if it can be proven that the group were acting collectively.
In message <q6c2mitje26p83nb6m0sqqfn34av7pksll@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 GMT, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>You need to ask yourself what the purpose of the pursuit was, and what
wrote:
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of >>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually >>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
Only if it can be proven that the group were acting collectively.
would have happened if IDS had stood his ground.
On 26 Nov 2023 at 13:54:56 GMT, "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <q6c2mitje26p83nb6m0sqqfn34av7pksll@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 GMT, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>You need to ask yourself what the purpose of the pursuit was, and what
wrote:
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of >>>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually >>>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
Only if it can be proven that the group were acting collectively.
would have happened if IDS had stood his ground.
I don't think it was a pursuit, IDS was going somewhere and the crowd followed, all but one miscreant at a respectful distance. He had no "ground" to stand, as he wanted to be somewhere else. It would indeed have been different had they chased him away from where he wanted to be.
On 26 Nov 2023 at 13:54:56 GMT, "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <q6c2mitje26p83nb6m0sqqfn34av7pksll@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 GMT, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>You need to ask yourself what the purpose of the pursuit was, and what
wrote:
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of >>>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually >>>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
Only if it can be proven that the group were acting collectively.
would have happened if IDS had stood his ground.
I don't think it was a pursuit, IDS was going somewhere and the crowd followed, all but one miscreant at a respectful distance. He had no "ground" to stand, as he wanted to be somewhere else. It would indeed have been different had they chased him away from where he wanted to be.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 13:54:56 GMT, "Ian Jackson"
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <q6c2mitje26p83nb6m0sqqfn34av7pksll@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 GMT, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> >>>> wrote:You need to ask yourself what the purpose of the pursuit was, and what
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote: >>>>>>>
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of >>>>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with >>>>>>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually >>>>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
Only if it can be proven that the group were acting collectively.
would have happened if IDS had stood his ground.
I don't think it was a pursuit, IDS was going somewhere and the crowd
followed, all but one miscreant at a respectful distance. He had no "ground" >> to stand, as he wanted to be somewhere else. It would indeed have been
different had they chased him away from where he wanted to be.
One of them stuck a fucking traffic cone on his head. Was that common assault or was it not? If you had been one of the howling mob following him, shouldn't
you have then thought, As a respectable law-abiding person this isn't something I ought to be involved in?
On 24/11/2023 11:25 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 GMT, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote:
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of >>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with
threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually >>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
Only if it can be proven that the group were acting collectively.
Or mass-hysterically?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Nov 2023 at 13:54:56 GMT, "Ian Jackson"
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <q6c2mitje26p83nb6m0sqqfn34av7pksll@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 GMT, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> >>>> wrote:You need to ask yourself what the purpose of the pursuit was, and what
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Jack@handsome.com wrote: >>>>>>>
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of >>>>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with >>>>>>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually >>>>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
Only if it can be proven that the group were acting collectively.
would have happened if IDS had stood his ground.
I don't think it was a pursuit, IDS was going somewhere and the crowd
followed, all but one miscreant at a respectful distance. He had no "ground" >> to stand, as he wanted to be somewhere else. It would indeed have been
different had they chased him away from where he wanted to be.
One of them stuck a fucking traffic cone on his head. Was that common assault >or was it not?
If you had been one of the howling mob following him, shouldn't you have then >thought, As a respectable law-abiding person this isn't something I ought to >be involved in?
On 25/11/2023 12:29 am, David McNeish wrote:
On Friday, 24 November 2023 at 22:42:29 UTC, Pamela wrote:
On 20:47 24 Nov 2023, Jethro_uk said:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:41:01 +0000, Pamela wrote:I was thinking whether this case could be considered a joint enterprise.
On 21:15 23 Nov 2023, Mark Goodge said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:52:10 -0000 (UTC), Ja...@handsome.com wrote: >>>>>>
In fact, then, IDS was pursued down the road by a howling mob, one of >>>>>> whom assaulted him. The police should have charged them all with >>>>>> threatening behaviour, not the s.4A(1) offence.
The police were unable to pursue a charge against the one who actually >>>>> assaulted him, due to their inability to identify him.
Isn't there some form of collective responsibility in English law?
from which collective punishment seems a logical step.
Lidice ?
I don't think you can really make a case for that unless you can prove thereAssault?
was some sort of common purpose to make the assault, rather than just
one of them doing their own thing.
Or battery?
On 25/11/2023 12:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It was a question. At this point in the exchange, I have no ideaDid I say that?[...] They are responsible forSo are you claiming, extraordinarily, that "they" deliberately set
the deaths of, at least, tens of thousands of people, and for
the on-going destruction of the country.
out to slaughter people and destroy the country [examples?];
what you were talking about, which is why I asked for examples.
I see. So it's "sentence first, trial afterwards"? The onlyor merely that they made [in your opinion] mistakes and that theNo, you don't get to "debate" whether killing tens of thousands of
policies of other parties would [in your opinion] have been better?
Assuming the latter, that is the sort of thing that gets debated at a
General Election. Better that. and a secret ballot, than mob violence
whipped up by demagogues shouting "scum, scum" or worse, and
disrupting meetings.
people was "reasonable policy", or whether illegally looting the
country for the corrupt enrichment of your friends was just something politicians do. You get to argue whether your term of imprisonment
should be very long or merely long.
sense I can make of your claim is that it's your opinion surrounding the pandemic and the supply of PPE. If so, it's an opinion around which
there is an ongoing inquiry, which was set up to find out what lessons
can be learned, not to apportion blame. [Otherwise, I still have no
idea what deaths and destruction you're talking about.] If the alleged corruption is proven, then that is bad, but it's scarcely "the on-going destruction of the country". As for the handling of the pandemic, no
doubt mistakes were made, which is why an inquiry is needed, and some
parts of the processes seem, from what we have already heard, to have
been shambolic. These things happen in war, whether against humans or viruses, when decisions have to be taken on the basis of conflicting
advice and with only partial information. It doesn't improve the
decision making if honest mistakes result in lengthy imprisonment [or
worse, in many parts of the world].
The problem with Jon's approach is that there are plenty of people
(including one or two regular posters on here) who feel just as
strongly about Labour politicians as Jon does about Duncan Smith.
So if it's OK for people to scream abuse at Duncan Smith, it must be
OK for people at the opposite end of the political system who hold
similarly strong about Labour to scream abuse at Labour figures.
As I said earlier, mere abuse ought not to be a crime, but coupled
with following someone down the street, it could well pass the
threshold.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 52:05:37 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,173 |
| Posted today: | 1 |