Personal identification
- Thread starter Biguns
- Start date
Sponsored Links
5 down, 139 to go
So JJ...
Do you still consider the 5 who have had their charges dropped as 'lawbreakers'?
If the charges are dropped against the rest, will they still be 'lawbreakers'?
Do you still support the trumped up offence of 'aggravated tresspass'?
Incidentally, it's an example of why plod is squealing like a stuck pig about being caught out acting illegally for the last 25 years regarding 'police bail'...In this case they have imposed conditions which are illegal, but which satisfy the political aim of disrupting peaceful protest - and an approach which is widespread!
So JJ...
Do you still consider the 5 who have had their charges dropped as 'lawbreakers'?
If the charges are dropped against the rest, will they still be 'lawbreakers'?
Do you still support the trumped up offence of 'aggravated tresspass'?
Incidentally, it's an example of why plod is squealing like a stuck pig about being caught out acting illegally for the last 25 years regarding 'police bail'...In this case they have imposed conditions which are illegal, but which satisfy the political aim of disrupting peaceful protest - and an approach which is widespread!
J
joinerjohn
You keep mentioning peaceful protest when we have seen on TV and in the papers , video and images of violent protest. I notice from the article linked to that the charges dropped so far are all against young people. Anna Mason in particular found her time in a police cell distressing. So much so that she found it hard to concentrate on here GCSE's.
So she was peacefully protesting about tax evasion by Fortnum and Masons, when she herself isn't even old enough to have a job that warrants her paying income tax? Hmmm From the claims she makes, I feel a compensation claim in the offing. (Wonder if she'll pay income tax on that?)
Now she just want's to help the 139 others..
As a schoolchild, she's certainly had human rights rammed down her throat for the last 11 or 12 years then. No surprise that she can't see the connection between human rights and human responsibility.
I sincerely hope that she leaves school, gets a job in some store or company somewhere that one day is the victim of these peaceful protesters, then she can tell all and sundry of her experiences, from both sides of the coin.
So she was peacefully protesting about tax evasion by Fortnum and Masons, when she herself isn't even old enough to have a job that warrants her paying income tax? Hmmm From the claims she makes, I feel a compensation claim in the offing. (Wonder if she'll pay income tax on that?)
Now she just want's to help the 139 others..
As a schoolchild, she's certainly had human rights rammed down her throat for the last 11 or 12 years then. No surprise that she can't see the connection between human rights and human responsibility.
I sincerely hope that she leaves school, gets a job in some store or company somewhere that one day is the victim of these peaceful protesters, then she can tell all and sundry of her experiences, from both sides of the coin.
jj..
yet again you sidestep the issue...not to mention the questions of course...
So let's try again shall we - It can't be that hard for you can it...
Do you still consider the 5 who have had their charges dropped as 'lawbreakers'?
If the charges are dropped against the rest, will they still be 'lawbreakers'?
Do you still support the trumped up offence of 'aggravated tresspass'?
yet again you sidestep the issue...not to mention the questions of course...
So let's try again shall we - It can't be that hard for you can it...
Do you still consider the 5 who have had their charges dropped as 'lawbreakers'?
If the charges are dropped against the rest, will they still be 'lawbreakers'?
Do you still support the trumped up offence of 'aggravated tresspass'?
Sponsored Links
What is defined as 'Guilty' though?
I am very familiar with a case at the moment where the aggressor has admitted to some of the evidence put to him but denied (sort of) doing some of the other things put to him. Due to the gravity of these 'other' offences i can see why he would want to deny doing them. Fortunetely for the victim, there were multiple witnesses confirming he did ALL that has been put to him.
So, is he guilty of all?
or, is he only guilty if found so in a court of law?
Bear in mind, the CPS put a heavy bearing on prosecuting only if it is the public interest to do so.
I am very familiar with a case at the moment where the aggressor has admitted to some of the evidence put to him but denied (sort of) doing some of the other things put to him. Due to the gravity of these 'other' offences i can see why he would want to deny doing them. Fortunetely for the victim, there were multiple witnesses confirming he did ALL that has been put to him.
So, is he guilty of all?
or, is he only guilty if found so in a court of law?
Bear in mind, the CPS put a heavy bearing on prosecuting only if it is the public interest to do so.
I'd have thought it's quite simple...
Guilt is determined by a fair trial of your own peers (unless you choose a magistrate), and anything else is supposition...
Unless of course you are jj who pre-determines the whole justice system...
Why is it quite simple?I'd have thought it's quite simple...
Guilt is determined by a fair trial of your own peers (unless you choose a magistrate), and anything else is supposition...
Unless of course you are jj who pre-determines the whole justice system...
You are witnessed comitting a serious offence, you own up to it. Therefore guilty.
Just because CPS don't want to run with it doesn't mean you didn't do it.
What if the victim doesn't want to g through the ordeal of a court case? that mean you didn't commit the offence?
What serious crime has been admitted in this case?...please enlighten me.
B
Busby28
ellal what other forums do you pa-troll with you're barrack room lawyer nonsense?
J
joinerjohn
jj..
yet again you sidestep the issue...not to mention the questions of course...
So let's try again shall we - It can't be that hard for you can it...
Do you still consider the 5 who have had their charges dropped as 'lawbreakers'?
If the charges are dropped against the rest, will they still be 'lawbreakers'?
Do you still support the trumped up offence of 'aggravated tresspass'?
I have not sidestepped the issue at all. They were arrested. End of.
Do you think people are arrested for not breaking the law?
Just because charges have been dropped , doesn't mean they didn't break the law. The CPS have the final say in who can be tried at court. So my answer to the question, "Do I still consider them lawbreakers ?" is yes.
No doubt , you'll come back with something else to obscure the issue of guilt or innocence and bring cases up from years ago where innocent people have been found guilty.
I notice in an earlier reply to someone else you say guilt is only proven following a fair trial by your peers.
How can this be true? When the CPS drop cases simply because it's not in the public interest to pursue them, or a prosecution would be too costly.
Guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, It can even be admitted by people, but not brought to court. Does this make them not guilty of a crime because they aren't prosecuted???
Trumped up charges of aggravated trespass? Would this be the same sort of trespass, you yourself said early in the discussion is supposedly a civil matter?
Thankfully you have answered all my questions in that post...
You obviously believe in the infallibility of the police, and you therefore believe in guilty until proven innocent...!
I hope you aren't in any way associated with the judicial system!
J
joinerjohn
O have never said the police are infallible, and I certainly don't believe in guilt until proven innocent.
Whether the CPS will now drop charges against the rest, remains to be seen.
Whether the CPS will now drop charges against the rest, remains to be seen.
Well it certainly looks to me that you are saying everyone who is arrested is guilty.
I don't know why we bother with judges and juries, then
J
joinerjohn
Well it certainly looks to me that you are saying everyone who is arrested is guilty.
I don't know why we bother with judges and juries, then
Well, lets look at the facts. They decided to protest inside Fortnum and Masons. ... They were asked to leave,,, They refused,, and so committed trespass.
Ok the charges were aggravated trespass (subject to criminal law not civil law).
Perhaps then Fortnum and Masons should proceeded with a civil case against them of trespass? If they did and were successful, would you then say these people were not guilty of law breaking?.
I stand by my statement that these people broke the law and are therefore guilty.
Simply because charges are dropped and not pursued, doesn't make a person any less guilty,,, and certainly doesn't make them innocent either.
Sponsored Links
