Quickest Way To Get A Gift To My...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Observing A Disorder Is Now A Crime
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by webbo3. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A doctor ( no not the one who got into a fight over Kuennsberg) was in ahotel room whilst his pals smashed up a bar - and was told the doctrine of common purpose applied to HIM under spanish law !
convicted. so had to report himself to the GMC who were VERY interested. They took the view ( sozza this is turning into a bit of tortured case of European Law) that a "certificate of conviction" anywhere in Europe was an unassailable fact that cd not be er assailed.
Held: not sure - the unassailable fact was assailed but only on that day
So if I'm walking down the street and witness a crime, I'm guilty too ? - yes mairder!! guilty guilty guilty - take him down
this is getting a bit like Law ( introduction Lady Bird) for twelve year olds.
So if I'm walking down the street , I'm guilty too ? well yes if the others down the street are thowing petrol bombs and turning over buses and police cars
No.
You didn't even bother to read the first sentence.
// A judge in Belfast has warned those caught observing or taking part in public disorder will be refused bail //
If you are in the middle of the riot, you are part of the problem, and you deserve to fall foul of the law.
I don't know why ABs fare right extremists don't understand that.
As I said in another thread, I do wish people (Gromit) wouldn't be childish and throw around the 'extremist' word with gay abandon.
Nobody has shown any extremism on this thread.
It's sad and pathetic to keep on throwing that bomb when there's no evidence of it.
It's probably best if you lay off the booze.
To be convicted of the offence of rioting under Section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986, it must be proved that the defendant used unlawful violence whilst they were one of twelve or more persons present together
*who used or threatened unlawful violence
*for a common purpose;
*and that the conduct of them (taken together)
*was such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness (had such a person been present at the scene) to fear for their own personal safety.
How can simply 'observing' a situation possibly be regarded as 'using unlawful violence'?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.