@dwynnehugh
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Bob – from what I read and it would help if new info wasn’t drip fed in, your brother did appear to have a propensity towards violence with, if I remember correctly, convictions for assault.
It is impossible at this time to delve into the full ‘ins and outs’ of that particular situation he was involved in, he was 1 against 3 but he did severely injure 1, KOd No. 2 whilst No.3 fled whilst he was able to.
Several criteria would have to be met one being the use of reasonable force to defend uprooting flowers, size / age of those involved in causing the damage etc. etc ad infinitum. The police and CPS must have felt that they had sufficient evidence to charge him with some form of assault and to institute proceedings against him – in fact I feel he was VERY lucky to just face a S47 ABH charge – S20 with intent to cause GBH could also have been considered here imho.
You say: “The magistrate threw out the case. The Thugs appealed and that was refused” – the Mags would more than likely have found him NG and to appeal the defence would have had to go to Crown Court to do so.
To discuss this fully, there are insufficient facts presented, too much water has passed under the bridge and memories fade. He wasn’t convicted – let’s just leave it at that.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
I think the fact that ‘one was out cold and the other had a broken jaw’ might have been considered, at that time and in the circumstances to be an excess use of force. The fact is ‘what is reasonable in the circumstances’ and that can very wildly from one case to another.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
Bob, I think that my answer will not agree with probably what happened in the case you mention – simply because of the way the question is put to me.
I would refer you to para 1-3 of my above post. Each and every case that relies on this is a subjective matter as to what happened – for argument sake – you see a guy hitting a female, you intervene to defend her, strike the guy and he falls to the ground. (No problems) However once on the ground you decide to give him a good kicking just to remind him that you do not hit females – you now have problems.
That is why it is almost impossible to codify such circumstances – what is reasonable in once set of circs, may be totally unreasonable in another. That’s life and the law!!
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
The below is a 2004 Daily Telegraph definition of reasonable force:
Definition of reasonable force is calculated in each individual case
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
The law generally allows a person to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of self-defence. Similar rules apply to defence of someone else or defending property from an unlawful act.
However, there is no easy definition of what force is reasonable: it is a matter to be decided in each individual case.
That is because self-defence is governed by the common law – the accumulated wisdom of the courts as expressed in decided cases.
Yesterday, MPs called for the law to be codified by Parliament, so that people would know where they stood. But that might not take matters much further.
There is already a statute setting out how much force can be used to prevent crime or to arrest offenders. But the Criminal Justice Act 1967 says no more than that a person “may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances”. In reality, it would be impossible to list all the circumstances in which the courts would regard force as reasonable.
A comparison of recent cases in which burglars were shot demonstrates that each case must be judged on its own facts.
As was reported yesterday, Kenneth Faulkner, 73, a retired quantity surveyor from Derbyshire, was not prosecuted for firing a shotgun at John Rae, 22, a burglar who had previously stolen shotguns from his gun cabinet. Mr Faulkner wrongly, though understandably, believed that Rae was armed and fired, leaving Rae with shotgun wounds to his leg.
The CPS decision not to prosecute, approved by the judge who sentenced Rae to prison on Monday, appears to have been based on the assessment that the degree of force used by Mr Faulkner was reasonable in the circumstances, and could therefore be regarded as self-defence.
By contrast, the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was initially convicted of murder after he shot a burglar in 1999.
His use of lethal force was regarded as excessive in the circumstances. Martin had his conviction reduced to manslaughter on grounds not related to self-defence.
The difficulty of deciding on which side of the line the law will fall is compounded by the fact that the common law has changed over the years. In 1924, a court said that “in defence of a man’s house, the owner or his family may kill a trespasser who would forcibly dispossess him of it”. That would not be regarded as good law today.
On the other hand, the courts are sympathetic to those who use more force than is necessary. Deciding an appeal from Jamaica in 1971, one of the law lords said that the courts did not expect a person defending himself to weigh the exact measure of his defensive action.
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest continued: “If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.”
The degree of force used will not be regarded as reasonable unless the accused person believed that level of force was necessary. However, necessity by itself is not sufficient: the force must also be reasonable.
And a person who mistakenly believes he is being attacked may still be able to rely on self-defence, provided he used no more force than was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to have been.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
The law states that you may use reasonable force – however there are circumstances to qualify this statement as to what is reasonable force. You may also make a pre-emptive strike if you think that someone is about to strike you but I suspect that that would also include such scenarios as someone about to throw liquid etc. on/towards you. I think one of the main problems the guy had was simply “where could he take hold of the female that would not have put him into a possible indecent assault position”. Serves her bl**dy right I say.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
‘Wait ’till your father gets home’
‘There are plenty of starving children in Biafra who’d love that’
‘You’ll have someone’s eye out with that stick’
‘Don’t sit on the cold concrete, you’ll get piles’
‘Eat the crusts, it’ll help hair curl’
‘It’s not meant to taste nice, that’s why it’s good for you’
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
I liked the red scheme after I got used to it, when I first saw it I though ‘what the hell’ but as you getz older yer eyes need a bitta help, the red did that for me.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
Bob – of course you can bring a private prosecution (PP) – whether the offence of blackmail is made out I have doubts personally, however be prepared that such PPs can always be ended by the CPS.
The real tragedy of this posting is the way some people use legislation to their own ends when in reality, the legislators never intended same to be used in that manner. I accept that this was only an example so no criticism levelled.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
Whilst our legal system and the laws themselves are far from perfect, I would ask which country has such perfection – NONE. It’s a case of ‘the best we can with what we’ve got’. All of our legal system is based on the old Common Law system and from memory the oldest Act which we used when I was in the police was the Justice of the Peace Act, 1361 where offenders could be ‘bound over’ to be of good behaviour – now superseded by various other, more modern Acts to prevent rowdy behaviour etc. etc. But all initially based on Common Law. Even today MURDER is charged under Common Law.
Our legal system has been for 100s of years a developing system whereby new laws are introduced to replace more outdated laws or where new laws are introduced to accommodate changing times, people and the new offences they can commit. As mobile phones have only recently become a problem whilst driving – legislation to prevent same was not a requirement in the 1970s etc. etc. Serious injuries – grievous bodily harm with or without intent S20 or S18 are still charged under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, though the ‘old common assault’ aspect of that legislation has been updated many years ago.
The law may not be perfect and it will not / cannot accommodate each and every possibility / combinations of possible breaches thereof – it’s FAR better that what many other countries have and our legal system has been used as a basis for legal systems in very many other countries over the years.
The law is complex – even day to day criminal matters – in 1968 the Theft Act was introduced which replaced the 1916 Larceny Act I believe. Great. However just around this time self-service petrol stations were becoming more frequent – Bill drove in, filled up and drove off – he made off without payment – not theft by the 68 Act because there was an implied permission in the SELF-service petrol station that you could have petrol and then paid. Eventually legislation caught up with this new problem with the introduction of the Theft Act 1978 which was designed to cover such eventualities and also included ‘having a meal in a restaurant and leaving by the toilet window’. Law can never catch up with present day problems and older legislation sometimes has to be used (stretched?) to accommodate offences never envisaged by law makers at the time of making the original.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
A few searches on Google led me to the answers – have backed up the SSD to a HDD and made a bootable USB stick using W10’s own system – will they work when needed ….?
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
According to the 6pm BBC News the High Court dismissed the action by stating that it was their opinion that the offence of “Misconduct in a Public Office” had never been tried in the form of a political campaign and the legislation was never probably envisaged to that end.
Once that can of worms is opened, you must know how far they will travel. Too often in UK law we see ‘mission creep’ – and that is bad law.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
Reminds me of the old Country & Western song ‘I’m my own grandpa’.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
Well it arrived and tbh it’s brilliant, great screen etc. etc and I’m very pleased with it.
Just one problem – my first forage into W10 – argh!!!!!!!! Now realise why I stuck to W7 but my days thereon are numbered!!
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
An even better deal, I ordered mine yesterday at £249.98 + VAT, today £258.29 + VAT!!
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
Thanks Dave.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
Hi Dave,
Very many thanks have gone with the HP Ryzen with their 3yr additional warranty (1+2) so hopefully all will be well.
Many thanks to you all for your inputs, suggestions and advice.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
Thanks one and all, I will hang on to see if Dave latches onto this one and see what he may suggest.
The T410 was a re-furbished unit which I purchased in 2014 from Aria – £200 I think it was. Has been used but was OK for my needs, so really hers will not differ a great deal. She has her Chrome Book for web surfing and wasting time!! ???
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
Ed P – not a question that I can really ask – this will allow her to work at home / weekends etc. If I ask she will say “No, I don’t want one” and probably go to work to do her course!!
I also think that most times it will be used in her flat so portability will probably not be a big issue I suspect.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
One use it will get is by my daughter, she works at Bham University and is undertaking some course which will require a laptop – she was going to use mine until it died this AM (life’s a bi*ch innit!!). Anyway it was W7 etc. so it may now be time to upgrade via my business as I sometimes need a lappy for statement taking etc. The DVDRW is something inbuilt which alleviates the need for an ext DVD, a 1Tb HDD again alleviates the need for an ext HDD but weighed off against boot up time etc.
Once she has finished her course she will hand it back to me as she has a Chrome Book already.
Decisions, decisions!!
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
I think that most people in the UK will, by now, have realised that ‘politician, honesty, integrity and truth’ will never ever be found in the same sentence – which is probably why the UK has so little regards for its elected members.
When you open a can of worms, you need to know where the worms will stop.
The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans
-
AuthorPosts