No power soon? Police hold 114 in power protest

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Generali wrote: »

]

Absolutely, these things cut two ways. Too right & the moment they dont & it is generally accepted it is all downhill from there.

Should protesters be able to do whatever they want? I guess most people would say no. I believe that to be Correct & I agree

Should the police be able to arrest people on a whim? Obviously not. Obviously not but there seems to be an deliberate attempt to bend (break) the law to suit at present.

Your argument seems to be that the latter is unreasonable but the former is reasonable. Disagree. Others have posted on here of my thoughts that dont even exist to justify their own posting.

I also note that you either missed or didn't want to answer my point about the woman attacking the policeman in the youtube link you posted - what should the police have done in the situation you postulated? Firstly my post of the youtube video was before any reports surfaced of the incident via the media. My thoughts on what the policeman should of done are irrelevent as the officer obviously broke the law & an offence was commited. Whilst I sympathise with the officer having a screaming idiot in his face (who by the way was responding to an incident/assault involving the police that happened 10 seconds earlier in the same video no more than 3 metres away from the said officer that not suprisingly hasnt been shown on TV) it is no defence for two assaults, one of which with a weapon. In addition had it not been for the police restricting & boxing in a legal protest these incidents may not have happened at all.

At this point, while we are on the subject of the G20, are you aware that scarey rioter/robber of the RBS Bank surprisingly in full view of the press & the police stole a PC & was arrested on the spot turned out to be a 17 yr old eastern european girl.

But hey not that the press were ordered to stay in 2 locations from first thing in the morning whilst the police funnelled the protestors off route to the press & then boxed them off for hours without food & water for hours on end before anything kicked off when people started trying to force the police to let them leave.

But hey, again, we will ignore all the facts & presume the writer is one of the idiots who supports law breaking idiot behaviour by protestors...

Havent got time to spell check.

mrstinchcombe

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Originally Posted by 1984ReturnsForReal


The supposed "murder", "manslaughter", "gbh", "abh" or more than likely "common assualt" doesnt even take place.

& why you would want to justify conspiracy for any of the above other than "conspiracy to commit common assualt" is beyond me.

You are going round in circles now.

The whole point of conspiracy is that the event HASN'T taken place. You arrest and hopefully get a conviction for it as it is a preventative measure as these people were CONSPIRING to make the event happen.

Why can't you just hold up your hands and say you are wrong on this, you are the only person in this topic that has no knowledge of law so bow to our superior knowledge. If there was a topic on something else you may have the better knowledge, but not this.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

You are going round in circles now.

The whole point of conspiracy is that the event HASN'T taken place. You arrest and hopefully get a conviction for it as it is a preventative measure as these people were CONSPIRING to make the event happen.

Why can't you just hold up your hands and say you are wrong on this, you are the only person in this topic that has no knowledge of law so bow to our superior knowledge. If there was a topic on something else you may have the better knowledge, but not this.

Avoid the statement completely you are quoting on.

This hadnt took place either

http://www.gcnchambers.co.uk/gcn/news/m1_widening_protest_prosecution_dismissed_at_sheffield_crown_court

Thrown out of court by 3 judges that know a lot more than you.

& they were actually travelling to the site....

mrstinchcombe

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Avoid the statement completely you are quoting on.

This hadnt took place either

http://www.gcnchambers.co.uk/gcn/news/m1_widening_protest_prosecution_dismissed_at_sheffield_crown_court

Thrown out of court by 3 judges that know a lot more than you.

& they were actually travelling to the site....

Why are you quoting a job thats a year old that proves no point to what has been said?

That was thrown out by a judge, as things sometimes are, because there was nothing to suggest that the offence of public nuisance would have taken place. The offence exists, this was acknowledged by the judge, but the case was dismissed.

By the way a crown court has ONE judge. You are confusing this with a magistrates court where there are usually THREE Magistrates.

With every post you have demonstrated that you are completely out of depth here.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Why are you quoting a job thats a year old that proves no point to what has been said?

That was thrown out by a judge, as things sometimes are, because there was nothing to suggest that the offence of public nuisance would have taken place. The offence exists, this was acknowledged by the judge, but the case was dismissed.

By the way a crown court has ONE judge. You are confusing this with a magistrates court where there are usually THREE Magistrates.

With every post you have demonstrated that you are completely out of depth here.

What you have done is to prove how to pointlessly manipulate, quote out of context & point score.

What you choose to ignore is agreement was made, a conspiracy charged & then thrown out of court..

Keep trying.

mrstinchcombe

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

What you have done is to prove how to pointlessly manipulate, quote out of context & point score.

What you choose to ignore is agreement was made, a conspiracy charged & then thrown out of court..

Keep trying.

Just because one conspiracy was thrown out it doesn't every conspriacy will. The example you gave isn't that similar to the one in the topic so it wouldn't form any case law.

I'm directly quoting from you, not out of context or manipulating. TBH tho I was point scoring but I'm so far ahead I've lost count now! :rotfl:

Normally I would have walked away from this topic by now. I'm not sure if you are genuinely so out of touch with a subject or whether you are taking the mick, all I know is I'm enjoying replying!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Just because one conspiracy was thrown out it doesn't every conspriacy will. The example you gave isn't that similar to the one in the topic so it wouldn't form any case law.

I'm directly quoting from you, not out of context or manipulating. TBH tho I was point scoring but I'm so far ahead I've lost count now! :rotfl:

"The criteria is met as they are suspected to have conspired to meet this criteria upon tresspassing."

"but to conspire to tresspass and once there disrupt lawful activity completes the offence."

"they were going to disrupt people going about their normal day to day work and possibly restrict power output causing power cuts."

"I'm sure there have been people in the past both charged then convicted of this offence"

"The whole point of conspiracy is that the event HASN'T taken place"


:rotfl:

mrstinchcombe

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

"The criteria is met as they are suspected to have conspired to meet this criteria upon tresspassing."

"but to conspire to tresspass and once there disrupt lawful activity completes the offence."

"they were going to disrupt people going about their normal day to day work and possibly restrict power output causing power cuts."

"I'm sure there have been people in the past both charged then convicted of this offence"

"The whole point of conspiracy is that the event HASN'T taken place"


:rotfl:

Thanks you have summed up several of my argument winning statements in one handy post!

I don't think you can possibly save face in this forum ever again, think its time to change your username, theres no coming back from how daft you've made yourself look here.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

"The whole point of conspiracy is that the event HASN'T taken place"

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Thanks you have summed up several of my argument winning statements in one handy post!

I don't think you can possibly save face in this forum ever again, think its time to change your username, theres no coming back from how daft you've made yourself look here.

That truely is the most rediculous thing I have read. If you dont know why dont bother replying.

Nice edit on #97. Shame I read it before you changed it.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

"they were going to disrupt people going about their normal day to day work and possibly restrict power output causing power cuts."

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Thanks you have summed up several of my argument winning statements in one handy post!

I don't think you can possibly save face in this forum ever again, think its time to change your username, theres no coming back from how daft you've made yourself look here.

Only a member of their legal team, the CPS, the Police, Jacqui Smith, the Cabinet or Security Services would be able to say that if indeed there was sufficient evidence.