Forum menu
Cmon Fred, go for it - start with the photos, we've all been waiting for the great big Talkemada meltdown and we know it was only a matter of time before you went wibble again 🙂
his absence was both noted by many and missed by many your absence would not be noticed. Go on dont post for three mths see what happens
So I guess I'm off your Christmas card list they Junky? 🙁
Diddums, what a shame - come tomorrow morning its Bucks Fizz for breakfast, then we can get to work allowing the coronation of Boris to PM in 2012 after the olympics, then who'll be laughing 😈
Not you ratty. Callmedave wont get in, and you can stick your bucks fizz up your ar*e.
from the london assembly bnp candidate
"Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal. "
and you side with these guys z11?, nice, very nice
kimbers - check out the same candidates views on 'care' for people with disabilities. The c**t needs setting fire to.
Kimbers - nope, I simply pointed out what the law on self defence was - thats not siding with them, its stating what the law is...
I suppose on your basis jimmy Carr must be a BNP supporter too? or are you relying on reductio ad absurdium?
See, this is the problem - you can't have an intelligent discussion about the law without some Left wing radical calling you a bigot - you sort of wonder why the Labour core vote is deserting them for the BNP...
I simply pointed out what the law on self defence was
No, you didn't. You came up with something about your opinion on what the Law means. I suggest you go away and read up on the subject...
I simply pointed out what the law on self defence was
He's not wrong you know he was just discussing it with MF then everyone called him a racist. Shame really as I like watching non boxing/karate people throwing haybalers, now the threads gone all serious. 👿
No Freddie - I stated what the law [b]is[/b]... and pointed pout a perfectly reasonable defence to the allegations made here of assault.
Its all out there if you know where to look.
My point remains - you can't have an intelligent discussion about the law without some Left wing radical calling you a bigot!
See Fred - this is the type of shitehole you dug for yourself last time before getting banned - you jump in with stupid and childish accusations that make you look a cock on perfectly reasonable discussions.
Think about it for a minute Fred - you're repeating your old ways, learn from what happened last time!
no z11 you said that 3 asian lads just invaded the personal space of the bnp guy
when the bnp guy started it by saying "how many of you guys are robbers?"
then the lads came over
you were defending the bnp guys because eitther you sympathise with them
or just want to pick a fight with all the nasty socialists on here
Its all out there if you know where to look.
Don't need to; I have a legal team to consult, matey! 😀
Come on Ratty; you can do better than that.
Both sides were provoking each other. The Nazi had already technically assaulted the young lad, and acted with a little more than 'reasonable force' in 'defending' himself. He could just as easily have stepped back. That would have been the more legally appropriate action. By throwing a punch, he was then acting in [i]retaliation[/i], which is against the Law.
Trust me on this; I have a lot more [b]real[/b] experience of this sort of thing than you. Not just stuff I've read on tinternet.
Feel free to carry on spouting shite though, you're quite amusing.
I probably won't pay much attention though, be warned.
Kimbers - you must have cloth ears
Listen again
"How many is there of us?"
and again
"How many is there of us?"
The lads came over and, yes, they did immediately invade his personal space, and any reasonable person subjected to that would have been intimidated and believe they were under threat.
None of us know what was said before - I'm presuming that the cameraman only turned on the camera when it looked like there was going to be a confrontation...
you were defending the bnp guys because eitther you sympathise with them
or just want to pick a fight with all the nasty socialists on here
No, I'm disagreeing with someone who said that they had assaulted anyone - and backing up my position with reasoned argument - rather than making wild allegations based upon the bandwagon of "oh well, they're Nazi's so they must be in the wrong" (or for that matter" they're asian, so they must be in the wrong"
So, come on, reasoned, adult discussion - who was in the wrong here? who broke the law?
"who was in the wrong here? who broke the law?"
These are not the same thing - legally, it's a toss up. In my opinion, the BNP candidate was in the wrong, because he's a f***ing nazi. That's as 'reasoned' as I'm prepared to be.
who was in the wrong here? who broke the law?
Both parties. The spitter (Assault and probably Public Order Section 5), and the Nazi (PO S5; Assault, Causing Affray).
Simples!
Whether or not the CPS deemed this worth pursing in the Public Interest is another matter. As an allegation of assault has been made, I suspect we've not heard the last of this.
And the other Nazis got stuck in too. Definitely Assault, Causing Affray, etc. With a bit of luck, charges may be pressed, and it's likely the thugs will have previous, so could end up inside.
All very silly and regrettable. Those hotheaded young lads weren't perhaps the best candidates to tackle the Nazis in reasoned debate, imo...
1. BNP are a bunch of c*nts so spitting on them is fair game.
That is just silly, really. No-one deserves to be spat on because of their views, no matter how repulsive someone else believes their opinions to be. It is why we are proud to live in a democracy, where everyone is entitled to a view and express it (within legal bounds).
2. Spit on someone and expect a good slap in return!
Agreed, whether they be black, green, BNP or lesbian.
3 asian lads were responding to abuse shouted at them by the bnp
Thats ****ing stupid. There's no way you can tell from the video who started the gobbing off. Good little ruck though.
They quite clearly approached looking for violence and then spat in a blokes face (not saying he doesn't deserve it though). But overall they went in looking for a fight and came out 2nd best.
his absence was both noted by many and missed by [s]many[/s] few
The Nazi had already technically assaulted the young lad,
Nope, he didn't - an assault is any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence (S39 CJA 1988)
and acted with a little more than 'reasonable force' in 'defending' himself.
Opinon, I argued otherwise, since it was a melee with several different people throwing punches
He could just as easily have stepped back. That would have been the more legally appropriate action.
No, there is no duty in law to retreat in an altercation
By throwing a punch, he was then acting in retaliation, which is against the Law.
He reacted instinctively and immediately without having the opportunity to do otherwise - it was all over in seconds. Had there been a delay in the response, the reaction might have appeared more revenge than self-defence. (R V Bird 1985) The defence that "I had been assaulted and thought I may be assaulted further" is perfectly reasonable, and in this case, surrounded by a bunch of agressive people who were fronting up to you and making threats would be more than adequate
Both parties. The spitter (Assault and probably Public Order Section 5), and the Nazi (PO S5; Assault, Causing Affray).
Simples!
Utter ballcocks, nothing simples about it - the Nazi has a statutory defence laid down within law that he acted in self defence, that trumps any accusation of assault, as for affray - that relies on the threat of [u]unlawful [/u] violence, since they only acted in self defence, no such claim can be made. Once self defence is raised as a defence, it is for the prosecution to prove otherwise, in this case it would not stand a chance.
The most serious offence in the whole video is whoever (and we dont know who) said "I'll ****ing do for you"!
Talcum...breeeeve mate. 'E aynt worf it. 🙂
Nope, he didn't - an assault is any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence (S39 CJA 1988)
...which includes touching somebody without their permission. Anywhere on their body. Regardless of the level of force used.
No, there is no duty in law to retreat in an altercation
There is however a duty to uphold the Law, and act in a legally responsible manner. His best option would have been to walk away and report it to police. Which he didn't. He took matters into his own hands, and retaliated.
Reasonable Force: He was spat at, and responded by punching. Little bit ott there, perhaps...
He reacted instinctively and immediately without having the opportunity to do otherwise
The video might be used to suggest he was also guilty of provocation, and as he'd already 'assaulted' the lad, his defence would be pretty flimsy. Could be argued that he provoked his 'attacker', which is 'causing affray'.
If, on the other hand, he'd merely been walking down the street, and the lad had spat at him for no apparent reason, he might have a better argument. As it is, I don't think anyone came out of that at all innocent.
As for the rest of it; seriously, you're out of your depth and don't know what you're talking about. You think you do, but you don't. I'd leave it, if I were you. You're not a lawyer, obviously...
Why are you defending the Nazi?
I call Godwins law!
You can't call Godwin's when someone describes fascists as Nazis. It's not hyperbole.
There is however a duty to uphold the Law
No, there's no duty to uphold the law.
His best option would have been to walk away and report it to police
"the law regards with the deepest suspicion any remedies of self-help", true, but they are still available.
But in practice - regardless of what actually happened on the tape, which I can't watch from behind this firewall - I suspect that there will not be a prosecution. Zulu 11 is correct in identifying a lot of the arguments that can be made and the events sound so quick and depend on subjective perceptions and objective reactions that it wouldn't be easy.
IMHO, from what I can gather without seeing the video, I suspect that it's not worth the CPS's time (not in the public interest) to prosecute two groups of men getting in a scuffle on the street, even if at least one group are world-class ****ers.
...which includes touching somebody without their permission. Anywhere on their body. Regardless of the level of force used.
No, Wilson V Pringle declared that the touching must be proved to be a hostile touching, but the introduction of the CJA in '88 made it into a test of any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence - this can include words or actions leading up to anything physical - therefore the Asian lads could easily be guilty of the initial assault from the way they approached him.
His best option would have been to walk away and report it to police. Which he didn't. He took matters into his own hands
But he had no duty to do that - he was perfectly legally allowed to stand his ground (and arguably prevent the fear of violence from interrupting the democratic process)
Could be argued that he provoked his 'attacker', which is 'causing affray'.
No chance, read the definition of affray again - at no point did Nazi bloke offer any form of threat of [u]unlawful[/u] violence prior to being assaulted, as I also pointed out - the initial personal space approach by the lads could legally be seen to be the first assault.
Blah blah blah.
You're boring now. You carry on believing whatever you want, eh? And reading stuff off Wiki or wherever.
Like talking to a brick wall... 🙄
Well I still think that both parties were as bad as each other - muppets, the lot of them.
As usual, you try and get into a reasonable debate, and then when you get over your head start with the negative waves... always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves
Go on Fred, do the pictures, do the pictures - its Wibble Hatstand time again 😆
The thing is, we could carry on arguing all day about the 'legal' aspects of this. Bottom line is (and I'm aiming this one at you ratty, as you appear so keen to uphold the fine upstanding nazi's rights) - where do you stand on this morally, and let's not hide behind dusty old statutes.
I reckon that the police will decide that no charges will be brought against anyone as no one person (or group of people) was entirely innocent or entirely guilty.
where do you stand on this morally
Where is there a moral standpoint to be had here?
If you actually had any clue what you're talking about, then you'd see how flawed your opinions actually are, Ratty.
I've tried to do you a favour here; give you the opportunity to go and learn stuff, but you're too busy trying to score points. Therefore, I've lost interest.
Like I've said; I have [i]real experience[/i] of how the Law works in very similar circumstances. But hey, if your Google Law is superior to that, then who am I to argue, eh?
Zulu-Eleven - Member
So I guess I'm off your Christmas card list they Junky?
wow your cutting barbs are as insightful as your other comments I am crushed at the harsh way you call me Junky it really really hurts and offends.
I only said Fred was more popular than you. I note you did not wish to argue the point and instead resulted to a barb at me. Thanks for accepting my point
you try and get into a reasonable debate
I dont think anyone has ever accused you of that have they?
Barnsley - its pretty irrelevant really, as long as they're not breaking the law then I'm with Voltaire!
For reference however, I hate everything the BNP stands for, both economic policies (Left wing bollocks) and social policies (fearmongering, reactionary white power racist tossers)
I dont think anyone should be treated differently (in either a positive or negative fashion) based on the colour of their skin, their ethnicity, religion or background - I think that the only thing that matters is their actions.
(cue trying to avoid making a cliched "Some of my best friends are black" comment)
Of course there's a moral standpoint. These are nazi's. They will tell you that the holocaust never happened. They will tell you there is no such crime as rape. They will tell you that people with disabilities should be 'put down'. Except they wont do it in public, because that would lose them credibility and votes. They are scum, and anyone who supports or defends them needs to question their own moral standpoint.
I have real experience of how the Law works in very similar circumstances
C'mon then Freddie - empart it, rather than making stuff up about, and I quote
And at the beginning, he moved his hand toward the smaller lad; that's actually Common Assault.
Which makes you sound more like a bad Armstrong and Miller sketch!
whatever your point of view is about the bnp
the fact is that spitting in someones face whoever they are is an act of cowardice and deserves a ****ing beating
he should of just punched him in the face to get his point across
and anyone on here who would call the old bill to report being spat at is a coward too and a liar in my eyes
and i think the bnp are just racists before anyone accuses me of sticking up for them
WTF so it's OK to spit on people because they're BNP? What about conservatives, lib dems etc? What about christians or muslims?
Is it the type of society you want where you can spit on anyone you disagree with?
Do you think you'd be charged if you spat in GBs face? effing right you would.
Crikey! What a bunch of fat-lad school yard slapping.
😈
WTF so it's OK to spit on people because they're BNP?
see if you can work out why people may think this appropriate for this party and yet would find it wrong against others. It is not hard to see why..you may disagree but you cannot expect the BNP to preach hatred and deportation of people without those British born people defending their rights and getting a tad annoyed at the message they are sending. Extremist politics tend to get extreme reactions.
I'd like to think that rather than gobbing on him, I'd have sat him down with a quick dig, but as I've said before (and experienced, unfortunately) the majority of bnp members are fairly handy when it comes to what I believe is termed 'robust debate'. Still cu**s though.
No, Wilson V Pringle declared that the touching must be proved to be a hostile touching,
Worth saying that Wilson v Pringle is a decision that is outside the mainstream on assault - it's very shaky.
see if you can work out why people may think this appropriate for this party and yet would find it wrong against others.
I don't think you fully understood the post.
preach hatred and deportation of people without those British born people defending their rights
And spitting on someone is defending their rights? 🙄
Am I really reading this tripe?
Kona, arguable both ways - but to be fair it had been superseded by the statutory definition of assault in CJA, rather than the common law definition in force at the time - theres little doubt that just touching someone without some form of hostile, illegal or malicious intent would be unlikely to constitute a "technical assault" even under the old law.
so it's OK to spit on people because they're BNP?
yes.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't spit on them, i don't like spitting, but i would be quite happy to see someone else do it!
Well if we're allowed to spit on the racists, then we're allowed to spit on the communists.