| Labour MPs on 20:35 - Oct 28 with 1089 views | union_jack |
| Labour MPs on 20:08 - Oct 28 by raynor94 |
That's exactly what he did, the bloke was waiting for a taxi, and had a go at the mp over the fuel allowance and the closure of a local bridge.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me"
Not satisfied with knocking him down, punches him 5 times on the floor.
Say it again, he deserves time and kicked out of the Labour party |
The MP will say that threats were made against him because that’s what he said at the time. What that threat amounted to we’ll have to wait and see. |  |
|  |
| Labour MPs on 13:30 - Oct 31 with 914 views | howenjack |
| Labour MPs on 09:30 - Oct 28 by lifelong |
As somebody has already said, hitting him once in self defence he would probably have a case, it’s the repeated hitting when he was down is the problem. |
In law you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you in order to claim self defence . The victim here had his hands in his pockets therefore no threat being posed. By lashing out the M.P can't claim self defence because there was no force being used against him. He has exacerbated his actions by repeatedly thumping him while on the ground. If hurty words were being shouted at him what he should have done is ignored it and walked away. |  | | |
| Labour MPs on 18:35 - Oct 31 with 888 views | majorraglan |
| Labour MPs on 13:30 - Oct 31 by howenjack |
In law you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you in order to claim self defence . The victim here had his hands in his pockets therefore no threat being posed. By lashing out the M.P can't claim self defence because there was no force being used against him. He has exacerbated his actions by repeatedly thumping him while on the ground. If hurty words were being shouted at him what he should have done is ignored it and walked away. |
Some of what you’ve written above is wrong and miss informed.
Nowhere in law does it say “you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you” - the law says a person must have honestly believed it was necessary to use the level of force to defend themselves, the force must have been reasonable in the circumstances and that the force must not have been excessive.In this case, there is nothing to stop the MP claiming his acts were committed in self defence.
A person can claim self defence if he felt threatened to such extent that he needed to use a preemptive strike to protect himself. Striking an offender who was on the ground doesn’t look good and could be seen as being completely OTT and disproportionate to you and I, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn't be reasonable act of self defence to someone else. In this case we don’t have the full facts and until they are known it’s impossible to say if self defence was used or not.
If for example the MP thought he was going to be subject to a violent assault, he would be entitled to use a preemptive strike to protect himself and the extent of the preemptive strikes and other subsequent blows would depend on the MP’s perceptions about the level of violence he faced.
Whether the acts constituted self defence will ultimately be down to the police/CPS and Magistrates /jury to determine, but before it gets that far the MP will be interviewed and have a chance to put his views across. He has to provide sufficient reasoning to explain his acts and demonstrate that his actions to were lawful, reasonable and proportionate.
Hurty words, as you say are not reasonable force. Being told by someone that they’ve got a knife or a syringe in their pocket and they’re going to stab you would be a completely different set of dynamics.
I’ve got my views on this incident, contrary to what some may believe it’s certainly not the clear cut case a lot of people are suggesting it could be. [Post edited 31 Oct 19:05]
| | | |
| Labour MPs on 18:57 - Oct 31 with 858 views | union_jack |
| Labour MPs on 18:35 - Oct 31 by majorraglan |
Some of what you’ve written above is wrong and miss informed.
Nowhere in law does it say “you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you” - the law says a person must have honestly believed it was necessary to use the level of force to defend themselves, the force must have been reasonable in the circumstances and that the force must not have been excessive.In this case, there is nothing to stop the MP claiming his acts were committed in self defence.
A person can claim self defence if he felt threatened to such extent that he needed to use a preemptive strike to protect himself. Striking an offender who was on the ground doesn’t look good and could be seen as being completely OTT and disproportionate to you and I, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn't be reasonable act of self defence to someone else. In this case we don’t have the full facts and until they are known it’s impossible to say if self defence was used or not.
If for example the MP thought he was going to be subject to a violent assault, he would be entitled to use a preemptive strike to protect himself and the extent of the preemptive strikes and other subsequent blows would depend on the MP’s perceptions about the level of violence he faced.
Whether the acts constituted self defence will ultimately be down to the police/CPS and Magistrates /jury to determine, but before it gets that far the MP will be interviewed and have a chance to put his views across. He has to provide sufficient reasoning to explain his acts and demonstrate that his actions to were lawful, reasonable and proportionate.
Hurty words, as you say are not reasonable force. Being told by someone that they’ve got a knife or a syringe in their pocket and they’re going to stab you would be a completely different set of dynamics.
I’ve got my views on this incident, contrary to what some may believe it’s certainly not the clear cut case a lot of people are suggesting it could be. [Post edited 31 Oct 19:05]
|
It will probably come down to the MPs word against the victim’s. Witnesses may be key in it all especially if they heard the conversation. | |
| |
| Labour MPs on 21:52 - Oct 31 with 811 views | howenjack |
| Labour MPs on 18:35 - Oct 31 by majorraglan |
Some of what you’ve written above is wrong and miss informed.
Nowhere in law does it say “you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you” - the law says a person must have honestly believed it was necessary to use the level of force to defend themselves, the force must have been reasonable in the circumstances and that the force must not have been excessive.In this case, there is nothing to stop the MP claiming his acts were committed in self defence.
A person can claim self defence if he felt threatened to such extent that he needed to use a preemptive strike to protect himself. Striking an offender who was on the ground doesn’t look good and could be seen as being completely OTT and disproportionate to you and I, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn't be reasonable act of self defence to someone else. In this case we don’t have the full facts and until they are known it’s impossible to say if self defence was used or not.
If for example the MP thought he was going to be subject to a violent assault, he would be entitled to use a preemptive strike to protect himself and the extent of the preemptive strikes and other subsequent blows would depend on the MP’s perceptions about the level of violence he faced.
Whether the acts constituted self defence will ultimately be down to the police/CPS and Magistrates /jury to determine, but before it gets that far the MP will be interviewed and have a chance to put his views across. He has to provide sufficient reasoning to explain his acts and demonstrate that his actions to were lawful, reasonable and proportionate.
Hurty words, as you say are not reasonable force. Being told by someone that they’ve got a knife or a syringe in their pocket and they’re going to stab you would be a completely different set of dynamics.
I’ve got my views on this incident, contrary to what some may believe it’s certainly not the clear cut case a lot of people are suggesting it could be. [Post edited 31 Oct 19:05]
|
“you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you”
that is a rule of thumb or yardstick by which someone will be judged by IE Was the force used proportional and not excessive. It is to stop someone going above and beyond what is necessary in the circumstances.
You are right we don't know all the background to this case . However the man in front of him had his hands in his pockets and at the time was presenting no threat as such so it doesn't look good .
you say he may have had a concealed knife or syringe in his pocket - He may well have had a gun who knows ? In those cases he would be within his rights to lash out and also make a citizen's arrest. The fact that he didn't make a citizen's arrest would probably mean that he hadn't been threatened with a concealed weapon . | | | |
| Labour MPs on 01:02 - Nov 1 with 784 views | majorraglan |
| Labour MPs on 21:52 - Oct 31 by howenjack |
“you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you”
that is a rule of thumb or yardstick by which someone will be judged by IE Was the force used proportional and not excessive. It is to stop someone going above and beyond what is necessary in the circumstances.
You are right we don't know all the background to this case . However the man in front of him had his hands in his pockets and at the time was presenting no threat as such so it doesn't look good .
you say he may have had a concealed knife or syringe in his pocket - He may well have had a gun who knows ? In those cases he would be within his rights to lash out and also make a citizen's arrest. The fact that he didn't make a citizen's arrest would probably mean that he hadn't been threatened with a concealed weapon . |
There is no reference to force one level above in the law, the law says the level of force has to be reasonable and the belief honestly held - that’s it.
The level of force used to satisfy the self defence requirement will vary from person to person as will the belief.
I | | | |
| Labour MPs on 11:18 - Nov 1 with 738 views | howenjack |
| Labour MPs on 01:02 - Nov 1 by majorraglan |
There is no reference to force one level above in the law, the law says the level of force has to be reasonable and the belief honestly held - that’s it.
The level of force used to satisfy the self defence requirement will vary from person to person as will the belief.
I |
“you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you”
that is a rule of thumb or yardstick by which someone will be judged by IE Was the force used proportional and not excessive.
Obviously you are not going to rigidly adhere with ice cool rationality to what the man on the Clapham omnibus would think is proportional in the heat of the moment .What suffices for a healthy middle aged man would not be viewed in the same light as for a frail old woman . But it is there as a yardstick to stop for example a failed mugger being kicked to death as "self defence". | | | |
| Labour MPs on 11:47 - Nov 1 with 713 views | onehunglow |
| Labour MPs on 21:52 - Oct 31 by howenjack |
“you can only use an amount of force one level above what is being used against you”
that is a rule of thumb or yardstick by which someone will be judged by IE Was the force used proportional and not excessive. It is to stop someone going above and beyond what is necessary in the circumstances.
You are right we don't know all the background to this case . However the man in front of him had his hands in his pockets and at the time was presenting no threat as such so it doesn't look good .
you say he may have had a concealed knife or syringe in his pocket - He may well have had a gun who knows ? In those cases he would be within his rights to lash out and also make a citizen's arrest. The fact that he didn't make a citizen's arrest would probably mean that he hadn't been threatened with a concealed weapon . |
It is indeed the case
It is all decided by the boys and girls in wigs
If anyone genuinely believes their lives are in danger or their family,it’s game on.
Best argue about it in court than be in the dust bowl unable to do so . | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Labour MPs on 17:14 - Nov 5 with 595 views | controversial_jack |
I doubt anything will come of this. Police and CPS can't be bothered to prosecute these days.
I know of a few cases of serious assaults - one caught on camera and witnessed by a neighbour that resulted in serious injuries and no further action to be taken.
SWP are useless, a waste of time and money | | | |
| Labour MPs on 18:19 - Nov 5 with 572 views | pencoedjack |
| Labour MPs on 17:14 - Nov 5 by controversial_jack |
I doubt anything will come of this. Police and CPS can't be bothered to prosecute these days.
I know of a few cases of serious assaults - one caught on camera and witnessed by a neighbour that resulted in serious injuries and no further action to be taken.
SWP are useless, a waste of time and money |
Probably a few 100 people who posted on X or facebook who would disagree.
The majority are white & easy pickings for the government to make a stance. |  | | |
| Labour MPs on 10:28 - Nov 7 with 471 views | howenjack |
The "rule of thumb " you can only reasonably use one degree more of force than is being used against you won't be found in a law book . That's because it was told to me by a barrister and professor of law. | | | |
| Labour MPs on 10:37 - Nov 7 with 455 views | Whiterockin |
| Labour MPs on 10:28 - Nov 7 by howenjack |
The "rule of thumb " you can only reasonably use one degree more of force than is being used against you won't be found in a law book . That's because it was told to me by a barrister and professor of law. |
We have a barrister on here, perhaps they would care to comment. |  | | |
| Labour MPs on 12:59 - Nov 7 with 422 views | raynor94 |
Mike Amesbury now been charged with assault, rightly so in my opinion |  |
| |
| Labour MPs on 13:08 - Nov 7 with 415 views | Ohyeah |
And of course not fast tracked into court.
That Dartford Labour councillor is still free. | | | |
| Labour MPs on 13:29 - Nov 7 with 406 views | howenjack |
| Labour MPs on 10:37 - Nov 7 by Whiterockin |
We have a barrister on here, perhaps they would care to comment. |
Who's that then ? | | | |
| Labour MPs on 13:36 - Nov 7 with 400 views | raynor94 |
| Labour MPs on 13:08 - Nov 7 by Ohyeah |
And of course not fast tracked into court.
That Dartford Labour councillor is still free. |
I thought he was still in custody, awaiting a bail hearing | |
| |
| Labour MPs on 14:13 - Nov 7 with 381 views | onehunglow |
| Labour MPs on 13:29 - Nov 7 by howenjack |
Who's that then ? |
Jon hasn’t posted for some time
I have his number if I get dropped in the poo | |
| |
| Labour MPs on 14:37 - Nov 7 with 372 views | Luther27 |
| Labour MPs on 13:08 - Nov 7 by Ohyeah |
And of course not fast tracked into court.
That Dartford Labour councillor is still free. |
What about the Manchester Airport thugs who attacked the police then want recompense? | | | |
| Labour MPs on 16:50 - Nov 7 with 316 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Labour MPs on 14:37 - Nov 7 by Luther27 |
What about the Manchester Airport thugs who attacked the police then want recompense? |
Yes some questions to be answered here. |  |
| |
| Labour MPs on 18:14 - Nov 7 with 274 views | onehunglow |
| Labour MPs on 16:50 - Nov 7 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Yes some questions to be answered here. |
Racist police harassing innocent folk of colour again
Innit | |
| |
| Labour MPs on 18:53 - Nov 7 with 259 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Labour MPs on 18:14 - Nov 7 by onehunglow |
Racist police harassing innocent folk of colour again
Innit |
Yes, police hitting their fists with their faces. | |
| |
| Labour MPs on 19:51 - Nov 7 with 235 views | onehunglow |
| Labour MPs on 18:53 - Nov 7 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Yes, police hitting their fists with their faces. |
I had several who wanted to put me away ,seriously
Best advice I was given was if you’re gonna hit someone then do it full on and don’t deny it
It never failed
I had to heatbutt somebody once in a very dangerous scenario and I actually bit him as well
I was asked why and how hard I’d hit him and replied with all my 12 stone . Problems arise when coppers try to deny it .
If your life feels in danger …. | |
| |
| Labour MPs on 20:06 - Nov 7 with 222 views | majorraglan |
| Labour MPs on 13:08 - Nov 7 by Ohyeah |
And of course not fast tracked into court.
That Dartford Labour councillor is still free. |
In terms of the Liverpool MP, why would he need to be fast tracked in to Court?
In terms of the guy Ricky Jones, you are wrong. He was remanded in Custody on 6.9.24 pending a trial in the New Year. [Post edited 7 Nov 20:12]
| | | |
| Labour MPs on 20:14 - Nov 7 with 211 views | onehunglow |
| Labour MPs on 20:06 - Nov 7 by majorraglan |
In terms of the Liverpool MP, why would he need to be fast tracked in to Court?
In terms of the guy Ricky Jones, you are wrong. He was remanded in Custody on 6.9.24 pending a trial in the New Year. [Post edited 7 Nov 20:12]
|
Sorry,which Liverpool MP? | |
| |
| Labour MPs on 20:26 - Nov 7 with 202 views | Dr_Winston |
| Labour MPs on 20:06 - Nov 7 by majorraglan |
In terms of the Liverpool MP, why would he need to be fast tracked in to Court?
In terms of the guy Ricky Jones, you are wrong. He was remanded in Custody on 6.9.24 pending a trial in the New Year. [Post edited 7 Nov 20:12]
|
He's currently out on bail apparently. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
