Special K Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 No. It would be up to the person slandered to issue a civil claim. The police wouldn't take sides as it isn't a criminal matter. If you were shouting claims such as these you can be nicked for a breach of the peace, especially if someone complained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 If you were shouting claims such as these you can be nicked for a breach of the peace, especially if someone complained. They would have to have a reasonable claim to have suffered alarm or distress and, frankly, that seems unlikely. You cannot arrest someone for breach of the peace just because you don't like what they are saying. That's the whole point of freedom of expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 If you were shouting claims such as these you can be nicked for a breach of the peace, especially if someone complained. They would have to have a reasonable claim to have suffered alarm or distress and, frankly, that seems unlikely. You cannot arrest someone for breach of the peace just because you don't like what they are saying. That's the whole point of freedom of expression. You can arrest them for shouting though.... Well, you might struggle, but the police could... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 You can arrest them for shouting though.... Well, you might struggle, but the police could... I fail to see the charge here... 'shouting in a public place', raising your voice in a loud manner', verbalising without due care and attention'? If that is the case then you could nick sixty-odd thousand every other Saturday at Old Trafford. Seriously though, there must be alarm or distress; just shouting is not enough unless there are other factors such as the person being drunk or under the influence of drugs, which in themselves are completely separate circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 In 1978, when the IRA planted a bomb down the bottom of town, Safeways I think or East Street way anyway, being Irish and unemployed, my Dad was arrested in our home by armed police and held for three days then released without charge, the mum of a girl I went to junior school with at the time also got arrested although she was released after 16 hours, as a 7 year old didn't think too much on the rights and wrongs of it, now I consider it to have been a process of elimination, he was fed, watered, offered blankets during that period, had he chosen to be obstructive during the process and was kept in for longer I believe it would have been only right and proper that he remained under police custody until such times as he cooperated and any potential risk to the public extinguished. Human rights are a good thing it is just how they are used and abused by those who look to unfairly benefit from them that sticks in my throat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwaySaint1 Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 They would have to have a reasonable claim to have suffered alarm or distress and, frankly, that seems unlikely. You cannot arrest someone for breach of the peace just because you don't like what they are saying. That's the whole point of freedom of expression. Give it 24 hours and a court order would be issued after the police complained banning the protester within 500 yards,just like any other goverment protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Give it 24 hours and a court order would be issued after the police complained banning the protester within 500 yards,just like any other goverment protest. That is if he is outside a particular place and the government use their powers of derogation on the grounds of National Security. No self respecting Judge should have allowed that to happen in Parliament Square. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwaySaint1 Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 That is if he is outside a particular place and the government use their powers of derogation on the grounds of National Security. No self respecting Judge should have allowed that to happen in Parliament Square. As I understand it all protest is banned from parliment square at the present time due to risk of national security from suicide bombers and terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Fox Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 As I understand it all protest is banned from parliment square at the present time due to risk of national security from suicide bombers and terrorism. Well there was a guy there protesting this morning when I cycled past...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwaySaint1 Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Well there was a guy there protesting this morning when I cycled past...... Is that the guy who has been there a long time who has been allowed to continue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 As I understand it all protest is banned from parliment square at the present time due to risk of national security from suicide bombers and terrorism. I would be interested to see a suicide bomber with a blast radius of 500 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Is that the guy who has been there a long time who has been allowed to continue? Yes. He is still there. I am sure I read that he has been given an ASBO and banned from the area, but is still there everyday anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mynameisthehulk Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Its interesting that some of those who are on the "anti hr" side of this argument feel that there ARE too many speed cameras. So, its ok to commit some crime? i.e. breaking the speed limit, because you do this? But they also feel there should be more CCTV in town centres to stop the crimes other people commit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Its interesting that some of those who are on the "anti hr" side of this argument feel that there ARE too many speed cameras. So, its ok to commit some crime? i.e. breaking the speed limit, because you do this? But they also feel there should be more CCTV in town centres to stop the crimes other people commit? Seems reasonable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 In 1978, when the IRA planted a bomb down the bottom of town, Safeways I think or East Street way anyway, being Irish and unemployed, my Dad was arrested in our home by armed police and held for three days then released without charge, the mum of a girl I went to junior school with at the time also got arrested although she was released after 16 hours, as a 7 year old didn't think too much on the rights and wrongs of it, now I consider it to have been a process of elimination, he was fed, watered, offered blankets during that period, had he chosen to be obstructive during the process and was kept in for longer I believe it would have been only right and proper that he remained under police custody until such times as he cooperated and any potential risk to the public extinguished. Human rights are a good thing it is just how they are used and abused by those who look to unfairly benefit from them that sticks in my throat This is my point, only I failed to make it in a clear concise way! Cheers Influenced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Its interesting that some of those who are on the "anti hr" side of this argument feel that there ARE too many speed cameras. So, its ok to commit some crime? i.e. breaking the speed limit, because you do this? But they also feel there should be more CCTV in town centres to stop the crimes other people commit? The arguement was that speed camera's are not primarily there to reduce crime, rather than raise cash for doughnuts. CCTV in a town centre is not a money making scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Just to put some perspective to this, there is no such thing as breaking the law anyway. Everyone is free to do whatever they want and "law breakers" as such, should be commended for their "pushing of the envelope". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Just to put some perspective to this, there is no such thing as breaking the law anyway. Everyone is free to do whatever they want and "law breakers" as such, should be commended for their "pushing of the envelope". Presumably by pushing the envelope they then prvoide jobs for "pencil pushers"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Presumably by pushing the envelope they then prvoide jobs for "pencil pushers"? In one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelamprey Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 No you are not the only one, plenty of other retards around,usually ranting about royal mail as well HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I blame Brussels and all their crazy rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 No you are not the only one, plenty of other retards around,usually ranting about royal mail as well HTH Define retard. Define rant. Define yourself without referring to your works for definition of retard, which will be tricky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 They would have to have a reasonable claim to have suffered alarm or distress and, frankly, that seems unlikely. You cannot arrest someone for breach of the peace just because you don't like what they are saying. That's the whole point of freedom of expression. Don't agree. If someone is shouting that Gordon Brown is a paedo, kiddy fiddling nonce, there are some people out there who would be offended or distressed by that. If they complained to the Police then the perp can be nicked. That is the point i am making, but you've already conceded that they could be nicked already. What a waste of my three posts today......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durleyfos Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Well there was a guy there protesting this morning when I cycled past...... Is that the guy who has been there a long time who has been allowed to continue? Yes. He is still there. I am sure I read that he has been given an ASBO and banned from the area, but is still there everyday anyway. What is he protesting about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Don't agree. If someone is shouting that Gordon Brown is a paedo, kiddy fiddling nonce, there are some people out there who would be offended or distressed by that. If they complained to the Police then the perp can be nicked. That is the point i am making, but you've already conceded that they could be nicked already. What a waste of my three posts today......... The law doesn't care if they are offended. I am offended by what I hear and see on a regular basis, especially if I happen to read the Sun or Mail. Distressed at someone calling GB a paedo? Well people are strange I grant, but that would take a whole new level of being pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 What is he protesting about? He is a tree hugger, protesting about the war in Iraq. He has been living in a cardboard box since 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 In one. There is a reason I am in the line of work I am in. I understand these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 He is a tree hugger, protesting about the war in Iraq. He has been living in a cardboard box since 2001. Does he pay Council Tax on his box? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Does he pay Council Tax on his box? I expect I pay it for him. I also expect that I personally pay his £100 a week 'job seekers' allowance. I wonder if he has Multi room sky TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I expect I pay it for him. I also expect that I personally pay his £100 a week 'job seekers' allowance. I wonder if he has Multi room sky TV. He has a multi-room box? Can you ask him where he got it next time you go past, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 This is a bit heavy for the Muppet Show ! Your DEAD! right Vicky,,,,,lets all get behind Billy Boy Bush and Nuke em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 The law doesn't care if they are offended. I am offended by what I hear and see on a regular basis, especially if I happen to read the Sun or Mail. Distressed at someone calling GB a paedo? Well people are strange I grant, but that would take a whole new level of being pathetic. Ok, what about calling a policeman a kiddy fiddler? Im pretty sure you can be arrested for that? So how is it you can be arrested for calling a police officer a nonce but not the PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Ok, what about calling a policeman a kiddy fiddler? Im pretty sure you can be arrested for that? So how is it you can be arrested for calling a police officer a nonce but not the PM? Because the Police Officer can claim, perfectly honestly, that he was distressed at being called that in his presence; as could the Prime Minster if he were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Ah I see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Saint Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Am I the only one who gets completely peeved off when these Human Rights groups pan on about things. For example, if Osama Bin Laden were to ever be caught, you could bet your boots on some HR gimp coming out saying he shouldnt be treated badly, should have a TV in prison, should have a choice of meals in prison etc etc. Like the amount of time you can detain someone suspected of terror charges. IMO if your innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Yet HR gimps come out saying its against their rights to detain them for x amount of days. One question... Would you be happier not detaining them, for them to then go and blow up hundreds or thousands of innocent people?! A few innocent people being detained for a few extra days is IMO a hell of a lot better than letting the guilty go a few days earlier! Discuss I would like to discuss the level of your stupidity. It is very high. End of discussion. ps this is the first post you have made that makes me think you are not Crouchie, because not even he was as stupid as your post is. You are an ignorant buffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I would like to discuss the level of your stupidity. It is very high. End of discussion. ps this is the first post you have made that makes me think you are not Crouchie, because not even he was as stupid as your post is. You are an ignorant buffoon. And your a short plastic c*nt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbul Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Am I the only one who gets completely peeved off when these Human Rights groups pan on about things. For example, if Osama Bin Laden were to ever be caught, you could bet your boots on some HR gimp coming out saying he shouldnt be treated badly, should have a TV in prison, should have a choice of meals in prison etc etc. Like the amount of time you can detain someone suspected of terror charges. IMO if your innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Yet HR gimps come out saying its against their rights to detain them for x amount of days. One question... Would you be happier not detaining them, for them to then go and blow up hundreds or thousands of innocent people?! A few innocent people being detained for a few extra days is IMO a hell of a lot better than letting the guilty go a few days earlier! Discuss What is the problem with the existing 21 days detention? Why now go to 42 for terrorists? The 21 days was okay when we were getting bombed by the IRA every other week, so why change it now? Tbh, if you haven't gathered enough evidence to prosecute after 21 days, then you ain't got a case. IMO of course. And if Osama Bin Laden ever does get caught then he will be tried according to the rule of law; it is after all what we are supposed to be defending isn't it? The HRA is something to be proud of, let's not start eroding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 What is the problem with the existing 21 days detention? Why now go to 42 for terrorists? The 21 days was okay when we were getting bombed by the IRA every other week, so why change it now? Tbh, if you haven't gathered enough evidence to prosecute after 21 days, then you ain't got a case. IMO of course. And if Osama Bin Laden ever does get caught then he will be tried according to the rule of law; it is after all what we are supposed to be defending isn't it? The HRA is something to be proud of, let's not start eroding it. i think you will find that many ofthe IRA incidents you are on about were kept out of the public eye and was against may of the then HRA rules.... in todays media frenzy world, this would be a lot harder to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 What is the problem with the existing 21 days detention? Why now go to 42 for terrorists? The 21 days was okay when we were getting bombed by the IRA every other week, so why change it now? Tbh, if you haven't gathered enough evidence to prosecute after 21 days, then you ain't got a case. IMO of course. And if Osama Bin Laden ever does get caught then he will be tried according to the rule of law; it is after all what we are supposed to be defending isn't it? The HRA is something to be proud of, let's not start eroding it. Im sure I will be corrected if Im wrong, however, I believe the idea behind it is that they need sufficient evidence. If there is some evidence, but not enough as yet and they believe they are able to obtain more, the additional 21 days gives them this leeway (sp). The theory behind it, Im guessing is that they dont want to let someone go after 21 days only for them to carry out their plan of terror on the 22nd day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 also, lets not kid ourselves....should the security services come across a hardcore terrorist, they will simply do what they want and ignore the HRA.....which is a good thing IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Human rights, data protection act, blah blah blah, we should simply have a Common Sense Act. I watched a program the other day where a man who was seperated from his wife but had access to his child, she had 2 from a previous relationship, he came over to collect the 10 month old and returned later that day without the child, stabbed his ex in the throat and stabbed the other 2 children, all survived, he was arrested and is serving something like 20 years, however, he has never told the mother or the authorities where the 10 month old is. I believe this man should be tortured until he discloses where the child is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 this country has faced bigger and nastier threats over its history and didn't feel the need to strip us of our basic human rights. this whole extending the limit for holding suspects is a disgrace. First it absolutely had to be 90 days. Then it absolutely had to be 42 days. What a joke. At least the House of Lords has some backbone. And this attitude of 'if you're not guilty you've got nothing to fear' has been disproved by history time and time again. The net result of this will be you and your family having to prove your innocence every day, and heaven forbid if you forget your i.d. card. The removal of human rights is a slow but steady decent into fascism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 I believe this man should be tortured until he discloses where the child is Ohh but you cant do that, what about his human rights! My god, to think someone should be tortured! What a brutish suggestion, he only stabbed two innocent kids and their mother, as well as potentially killing another innocent child! FFS, its questionable if he should be imprisoned! We are all entitled to atleast 1.375 metres cubed of exposure to sunshine and we all know he wouldnt get that in a small prison box, not to question the case of how much space he is entitled to as a human! IMO as soon as you disregard the human life, you cease to have 'rights' and this is the core of my original point. F*ck the people who say this bloke should have rights, he has potentially killed a kid as well as trying to kill two more and an adult! Yes people are entitled to basic human rights and I am grateful of these, but people on the whole dont go around murdering others! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 And terror? what terror? If we're going to change all these laws and give up basic freedoms to protect us from all this terror... then show me the terror. We were under a much more vicious, sustained and deadly terrorism campaign under the IRA, who killed a lot more people that 3 blokes on a tube train, yet at the time that didnt fit the governments agenda... thank god for the "war on terror" huh? Utter utter ********. The current threat of terrorism is the highest it has ever been. The Goverments remit is to have the public, "vigilant" as opposed to "paranoid" (If they were to tell us of every threat they snub out, paranoia would be an understatement). There will be more attacks, but through the use of technology (Including CCTV) and the highly skilled operatives we have, we can limit or reduce them. baj if you have convinced yourself this whole terror thing is all spin, you are deluded. And if you ever saw the program Terror in the Skies, you will know the part that CCTV played in what ultimatley saved 1000's of lives...... may be yours or a famil member Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 baj...i can assure you that the terror alert and threat to this country is higher than ever.. I know people who work in the security services and have experience so to speak..i wont go into anything else...but I can assure you, that they work day in day out to keep things as they are...and it is the nature of the beast that we only here about 1% of their work... baj, this terror thing is NOT spin and is NOT made up...i can assure you...like I said, I will not go into details but it is a real threat The terror threat on this country is far greater than that if the IRA...the very fact we spent 30 odd years against them makes us the leading country in the world (us and Isreal) in dealing with homeland security...and for that reason alone is why things appear "quiet".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Trubble Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7681520.stm I think that some on here have no real understanding of the pure hatred and contempt for life that some sections of our community have for the morals and ethics of what Britain holds so dear. You'll all assume that this is an isolated incident but there is so much going on onder the radar that willl come to light in the next few months. Come and live in some of the suburbs of Birmingham if you want to smell the hatred, no doubt some of the white middle classes who post on here have never lived in a community where their religious beliefs, maybe Christianity or Catholicism are not made welcome and are in the minority, Islam is the only way forward in some peoples eyes and by hook or by crook they will ram that Islamic dogma right down your throat and if you don't like it then they'll see that you shut up or move out. No doubt i'll be accused of over reacting, well my answer to that is please come and live here for a few years and i'll happily accept your apology that you were wrong after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 how? I could explain but as it was a fairly simple point in the first place I think I would be wasting my time, a much better use of my time would be to call you a durr-brain and vow to stop opening threads you have started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 I could explain but as it was a fairly simple point in the first place I think I would be wasting my time, a much better use of my time would be to call you a durr-brain and vow to stop opening threads you have started. I think the problem here is that some people have so much vitriol when it comes to subjects like terrorism and such a poor grasp of the facts that aspects of The Human Rights Act are cherry-picked to fuel their arguments. Yes, the HRA protects those people who don't have any consideration for the Human Rights of others but that doesn't mean that we have to suspend their rights as a consequence. To do so would mean that we, as a civilisation, would be regressing to exactly the same level as they are; and we should, in a liberal democracy, put ourselves above their level. Otherwise we would have anarchy and the rule of violence instead of the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 If this happened and then this happened, surely this would happen and that would **** me off. Once again you are putting forward both sided of the argument and disagreeing with yourself. I could explain but as it was a fairly simple point in the first place I think I would be wasting my time, a much better use of my time would be to call you a durr-brain and vow to stop opening threads you have started. Nope, I have read my inital post over again, and fail to see the relevance in your counter post. Maybe it is you that has misunderstood. How am I disagreeing with myself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 I think the problem here is that some people have so much vitriol when it comes to subjects like terrorism and such a poor grasp of the facts that aspects of The Human Rights Act are cherry-picked to fuel their arguments. Yes, the HRA protects those people who don't have any consideration for the Human Rights of others but that doesn't mean that we have to suspend their rights as a consequence. To do so would mean that we, as a civilisation, would be regressing to exactly the same level as they are; and we should, in a liberal democracy, put ourselves above their level. Otherwise we would have anarchy and the rule of violence instead of the rule of law. I agree, good post. Nope, I have read my inital post over again, and fail to see the relevance in your counter post. Maybe it is you that has misunderstood. How am I disagreeing with myself?Alright then ****tard, I was saving my last post to put something truly inspired on the post match reaction thread later but that will have to wait. In the same way in which you did in your goths thread the other day you put forward both sides of the argument, in this instance you have said if Bin Laden was captured people would be sticking up for him and that would annoy you. In the goths thread you said that goths always go on about how they want to be individual and you disagreed saying that by clinging onto a well established social clique they were, by definition, not individual. In both instances you make up both sides of the argument and then rally against the one you disagree with. We don't know that someone would bother would Bin Laden's Human Rights and you don't know what goths get up to, for example on the other thread you wrote, I bet they all sit around in their dungeon-esk clubs moaning about following rules and criteria, yet they all look the frickin same! Do you understand yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now