Noise complaint from neighbour who assaulted me

NewShadow

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

You're the one arguing that murder isn't an offence against a person cause it's covered by common law. You're also saying rape isn't committed against a person too.

No - actually I'm not arguing that at all...

I'm finding it a little ironic that you started out saying this:

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

Technically it's against the person as you can't racially abuse the property and on the crime report the op will be the victim.

But seemingly have no interest in the actual legal technicalities of the relevant charges.

You don't have to know the law to be a backroom barrister - but you do have be willing to trust that the CPS know the law to understand why your posts are factually incorrect.

Given I have no interest in discussing legal technicalities with someone who has no interest the actual facts of the matter - I'll wish you a good day

Shaun_of_the_Dead

NewShadow wrote: »

No - actually I'm not arguing that at all...

I'm finding it a little ironic that you started out saying this:



But seemingly have no interest in the actual legal technicalities of the relevant charges.

You don't have to know the law to be a backroom barrister - but you do have be willing to trust that the CPS know the law to understand why your posts are factually incorrect.

Given I have no interest in discussing legal technicalities with someone who has no interest the actual facts of the matter - I'll wish you a good day

So your argument is rape is not a personal offence as it is committed against a statute.

Murder is not committed against a person because it's against common law.

Are you one of these freemen of the land who doesn't drive their cars but simply move it?

Tell the op the racial abuse isn't against them personally.

NewShadow

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

So your argument is rape is not a personal offence as it is committed against a statute.

Murder is not committed against a person because it's against common law.

Again - you are the one who wanted to discuss technicalities - and now you're talking emotive generalities because you are technically wrong...

Rape is committed against a person - it isn't an 'offence against the person'... it's a 'sexual offence' as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 .

A person is killed - that's not 'an offence against a person'... it's classed as Homicide - excluding in the cases of Gross Negligence and Corporate Manslaughter, which have their own legal categorisation.

Tell the op the racial abuse isn't against them personally.

Racial abuse is an aggravating factor in a crime whereby the offender is motivated by hostility or hatred towards an individual or group's race or religious beliefs, actual or perceived - it may or may not be 'an offence against a person' depending on the category of underlying crime.

Here's the relevant section from statute:

Crime_and_Disorder_Act_1998 wrote:

30 Racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property belonging to another) which is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of this section.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable:

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or to a fine, or to both.

(3)For the purposes of this section, section 28(1)(a) above shall have effect as if the person to whom the property belongs or is treated as belonging for the purposes of that Act were the victim of the offence.

Question: if racially aggravated criminal damage to property is technically a crime 'against a person' - why would the statute need to specify in 30(3) they should be treated "as if" the owner of the property were the victim of the offence?

Or do you think the drafters included that provision for giggles?

Are you one of these freemen of the land who doesn't drive their cars but simply move it?

No... I'm someone who's paid by the Government to draft legislation - hence having a good grasp of legal technicalities.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

NewShadow wrote: »

Again - you are the one who wanted to discuss technicalities - and now you're talking emotive generalities because you are technically wrong...

Rape is committed against a person - it isn't an 'offence against the person'... it's a 'sexual offence' as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 .

A person is killed - that's not 'an offence against a person'... it's classed as Homicide - excluding in the cases of Gross Negligence and Corporate Manslaughter, which have their own legal categorisation.


Racial abuse is an aggravating factor in a crime whereby the offender is motivated by hostility or hatred towards an individual or group's race or religious beliefs, actual or perceived - it may or may not be 'an offence against a person' depending on the category of underlying crime.

Here's the relevant section from statute:



Question: if racially aggravated criminal damage to property is technically a crime 'against a person' - why would the statute need to specify in 30(3) they should be treated "as if" the owner of the property were the victim of the offence?

Or do you think the drafters included that provision for giggles?



No... I'm someone who's paid by the Government to draft legislation - hence having a good grasp of legal technicalities.

Answer: because criminal damage is covered by the Criminal Damage Act.

So sexual offences aren't committed against a person then?

NewShadow

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

Answer: because criminal damage is covered by the Criminal Damage Act.

Then why - under paragraph 28 - was it not required to make the same clarification in relation to racially aggravated assaults, covered by the Offences Against the Person Act?

Is it - perhaps - because charges laid under the Criminal Damage Act are offences against property therefore a notation had to be made that, in these specific cases, they should be treated as if the offence had been against the owner of the property?

Perhaps because... if they didn't make that reference then the definition of 'racially or religiously aggravated' under the Crime and Disorder Act wouldn't have applied to crimes against property... ?

So sexual offences aren't committed against a person then?

If you continue to try and argue legal technicalities then you need to pay attention to the detail of your opponents argument... otherwise you are simply making a very poor strawman.

To quote myself:

NewShadow wrote: »

Rape is committed against a person - it isn't an 'offence against the person'... it's a 'sexual offence' as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

You do know the difference between an act being committed and a the legal categorisation of an offence for the purposes of laying charges? Namely that the same act can be charged in several different ways - and therefore subject to different evidentiary and sentencing guidelines - depending on how the CPS decide best to bring charges.

If you want to argue that the neighbour intended to offend, intimidate or attack the person of the OP based on the personal characteristics of the OP - that's a perfectly valid position to take and the truth of the charge is currently subject to the judgement of the courts - I've never disagreed with you on that point.

All I am stating is that the reported charges laid against the neighbour are offences against the property of the OP with aggravating factors - and therefore subject to disclosure.

That is a factual legal technicality.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

NewShadow wrote: »

Then why - under paragraph 28 - was it not required to make the same clarification in relation to racially aggravated assaults, covered by the Offences Against the Person Act?

Is it - perhaps - because charges laid under the Criminal Damage Act are offences against property therefore a notation had to be made that, in these specific cases, they should be treated as if the offence had been against the owner of the property?

Perhaps because... if they didn't make that reference then the definition of 'racially or religiously aggravated' under the Crime and Disorder Act wouldn't have applied to crimes against property... ?



If you continue to try and argue legal technicalities then you need to pay attention to the detail of your opponents argument... otherwise you are simply making a very poor strawman.

To quote myself:



You do know the difference between an act being committed and a the legal categorisation of an offence for the purposes of laying charges? Namely that the same act can be charged in several different ways - and therefore subject to different evidentiary and sentencing guidelines - depending on how the CPS decide best to bring charges.

If you want to argue that the neighbour intended to offend, intimidate or attack the person of the OP based on the personal characteristics of the OP - that's a perfectly valid position to take and the truth of the charge is currently subject to the judgement of the courts - I've never disagreed with you on that point.

All I am stating is that the reported charges laid against the neighbour are offences against the property of the OP with aggravating factors - and therefore subject to disclosure.

That is a factual legal technicality.

Well you have but I would expect anything else from a lackey.

NewShadow

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

Well you have but I would expect anything else from a lackey.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Is it a nice day where you are?

Maybe you should go for a walk to blow off some of that steam before you make a fool of yourself :A

Shaun_of_the_Dead

NewShadow wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Is it a nice day where you are?

Maybe you should go for a walk to blow off some of that steam before you make a fool of yourself :A

I'm not the one getting wound up coming back having wished someone a good day. Make you should trot off for some diy.

NewShadow

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

I'm not the one getting wound up coming back having wished someone a good day. Make you should trot off for some diy.

Haven't bought my house yet so just hanging around on the forums reading threads and waiting for my cake to finish baking.

I'm sure - when I'm ready to start doing up my house - your advice will be most welcome as I'm learning all about DIY. I'm more than happy to respectfully learn from others when they have expertise in a subject that I lack.

But then - I've never been the type that's felt the need to resort to personal attacks when I've gotten something wrong :cool:

patman99

And back to the Op and their problem next door.


One action they are well advised to take based on the actions of the phsyco next door is to go for a restraining order against him.


If the Judge finds in the op's favour, the nutter next door may well find himself subject to an exclusion zone centred around the op's property and may well also end up with a gps taag on his ankle.