Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 95 comments are related to the topic:
Four Treated After Stabbing At Manchester Shopping Centre

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 95
By:
Knight Commander
When: 12 Oct 19 20:55
Depends on the location of the wound I suppose.
By:
detraveller
When: 12 Oct 19 21:19
Not really. With attempted murder you have to prove intent to kill and with serious assault you have to prove intent to cause serious bodily harm. But I don't know what the exact definitions are. Much easier for the prosecution to charge a guy like this with serious assault rather than attempted murder. They want to make their own lives easier.
By:
detraveller
When: 12 Oct 19 21:20
They want to make their own lives easier.
And I don't mean that in a negative way.
By:
PorcupineorPineapple
When: 12 Oct 19 21:45
Charges get updated as the plod get more evidence don't they? If there's CCTV, or witness statements of him shouting that he's trying to kill or indeed if he freely states that was what he wanted to do.

Assault is simply the most fitting given the evidence at the start and is enough to hold him in custody and question him further.
By:
boxingthefox
When: 12 Oct 19 21:46
detraveller, you are a great contributer to this fotum. Your attention to detail is unrivalled, but I think this  displays a 'cant see the wood' for the trees' etical morality which is misuuderstood. Just a thought. Love
By:
detraveller
When: 12 Oct 19 21:51
I only understood the first sentence boxing. Thanks.

Care to explain the second part?(I have a feeling its not good for me)
By:
moisok
When: 12 Oct 19 21:53
he meant no harm is what you are trying to say traveller/porky
By:
PorcupineorPineapple
When: 12 Oct 19 22:23
aah, moysey. Ever the idiot.
By:
detraveller
When: 12 Oct 19 22:24
No. That is not what I said. I don't know what he meant to do. No one knows, quite possibly not even him(temporary insanity). All we know is he stabbed people with a knife.

The man has been arrested on 'suspicion of serious assault'. They then changed it to terror. Then they realized they didn't have any evidence and changed it to arrest under mental health act, whatever that is.

At some point he will be charged. If they can prove he intended to kill, he will be charged with attempted murder. Otherwise, probably just assault. The prosecution charges people everyday and they won't charge someone with a crime that they will need to work their asses off to prove. Since he has been arrested under the mental health act, he probably will be out pleading some mental issues and everyone here will do the usual routine, not knowing he beat them because that's how their law is.
By:
detraveller
When: 12 Oct 19 22:47
If you were pushed down the stairs by a person in a red jacket, you can get up and stab everyone in the mall wearing a red jacket. Then plead guilty to assault after provocation. If you have a good reason for having a knife with you, you'll get a couple of months and be out.

Now this is when you play nice and plead guilty. You can easily let them charge you with common assault and make them prove it. They won't be able to do it because every time you saw someone in a red jacket all you did was stab them in self defense, as you had already been attacked by a guy in a red jacket.

So even though the news says you stabbed 10 people in a mall, you'll get away with it and the public will whine about how he got out because he's a chap of the book or similar stuff.

People here often compare cases like these but never read the detailed verdict. I remember Tommy Robinson's contempt of court. People on here were on about how he didn't really affect the case as his act was done after the verdict was announced. The judge in his detailed verdict said exactly the same thing! he didn't affect the case but the intent was there. And that was all they needed to prove(Just like in assault, you don't have to prove bodily harm, but the 'intent to cause it')

Similarly the law treats crimes motivated by racial elements differently. The maximum punishment for common assault is 6 months. If you can prove it was motivated by racial factors, it goes up to 2 years. Im no legal expert but its factors like these that send a guy throwing bacon at a mosque to jail while a muslim guy stabbing a dozen people gets a slap on the wrist. Its how the law works.
By:
detraveller
When: 12 Oct 19 22:59
There was a case of a young kid touching a girl's arm who has now been convicted of sexual assault.

If you remember that news, the girl was on about how he would have touched her breasts had she not moved and how the incident affected her psychologically, so much that she couldn't sit her mock exams, performed poorly in her exams and all that affected her her application to Oxford. They were proving that the 'intention' of a sexual assault was there(even though it never actually happened) AND that the assault affected her psychologically, by mentioning her exams and poor perfornace.

The boy's defense talked about he is socially awkward, how he signed up on social media to make friends and how he googled how to make friends. They did this because they wanted to prove his 'intentions' of going up to the girl.

What you saw in the news was 'A 19-year old who google how to make a friend convicted of sexual assault despite only touching the arm'

The law sees things differently.
By:
detraveller
When: 12 Oct 19 22:59
Tomorrow we start at 11am. Goonight.
By:
Injera
When: 13 Oct 19 10:53
Yet another knife weilding thug who has 'mental health' issues.

Haven't heard ANY debates questioning why these ill people are allowed to walk our streets. Maybe because they know exactly what they're doing???
By:
EvgenyKissin
When: 13 Oct 19 11:07
Well it's after 11am so we can resume the thread.

Science and Industry Museum was great and I like Lowry paintings.
By:
detraveller
When: 13 Oct 19 11:24
Apologies for being late. Yes we can resume. Where were we?
By:
elisjohn
When: 13 Oct 19 11:25
if the prosecution these days are trying to prosecute on the intention to do something, god help us. That  kid touching the arm incident is a disgrace. I was thinking , if i wanted to get the attention of a person in say the street, and she / him was in front of me etc, i could shout excuse me, hello, hi, but the person mightnt know im trying to get their  attention, then i would probably put my hand on her shoulders. in that case there is no way a jury in crown court could  have convicted him, i doubt a proper judge would even let it go so far.
By:
detraveller
When: 13 Oct 19 11:30
Wasn't it always like that? Its the intention that has to be proved.
By:
Angoose
When: 13 Oct 19 11:31
How do you distinguish between a proper judge and an improper judge Confused
By:
detraveller
When: 13 Oct 19 11:38
ironed uniform, nails cut, proper haircut.
By:
Reynard
When: 13 Oct 19 17:01
With multiple incidents of multiple stabbings by multiple non-whites it's frankly no surprise that more than 50% of the population are racists Whoops
By:
flushgordon1
When: 13 Oct 19 17:32
Of you banged your head on the floor five times a day ,you might get mentally ill.
By:
moisok
When: 13 Oct 19 18:46
traveller and porky don't understand that the more you let in the more you will get of this type of behaviour
it is cultural - they need to know this
By:
moisok
When: 13 Oct 19 18:48
but if you mention it you are an idiot  - strange how anti brexit and apologists sing from the same hymn sheet - yah nose  - with the added insults -
By:
detraveller
When: 13 Oct 19 19:12

Oct 13, 2019 -- 6:46PM, moisok wrote:


traveller and porky don't understand that the more you let in the more you will get of this type of behaviourit is cultural - they need to know this


I do understand that. Please point out the part that made you think I didn't understand.

Do you understand how the law works? Did you know breaking the skin layer counts as a 'wound' but rupturing a blood cell doesn't? That's how the law works. It defines everything and lays things out very clearly. But all people like you do is watch the media and then complain because it doesn't make sense to you, because you are clueless about how courts work.

Note that in this post and the previous posts I have only talked from the legal perspective. I have NOT said there is or is not a cultural problem. You made it up because that's all your brain sees in my posts.

Also notice that this guy was arrested under the mental health act. That is British law, not sharia law. And isn't derived from any cultural source either.

By:
moisok
When: 13 Oct 19 20:06
there has been such a large increase in this sort of behaviour  whilst the apologists like detraveller and porky try to deflect the seriousness and origination of the behaviour comes from

anyone see the interview on tv with the gang member from a london gang telling how the incursion of an immigrant group to their area came tooled up and they had to react!!!!   Started a whole new ball game apparently. Particularly the type of weapons!!
By:
detraveller
When: 13 Oct 19 20:18

Oct 12, 2019 -- 8:16PM, Knight Commander wrote:


"Serious assault"? Shouldn't that be attempted murder?


@moisok

This was the post I responded to. The whole point was, the prosecution has to prove that the person stabbing had the intention of harming his victims. I named a few scenarios where a person could stab someone and still get away with it. All those scenarios are perfectly legal under British law. I apologize if that came across as if I was trying to defend the guy who stabbed those people. I wasn't.

This what porky said:
Charges get updated as the plod get more evidence don't they? If there's CCTV, or witness statements of him shouting that he's trying to kill or indeed if he freely states that was what he wanted to do.

Assault is simply the most fitting given the evidence at the start and is enough to hold him in custody and question him further.


He was correct. The charges got updated along the way. He was arrested for assault, rearrested on terror charges, then rearrested under the mental health act.

You have not said where he or I got things wrong.

But for some reason both of us are apologists, even though all we were doing was answer the question I have quoted above, which had a legal nature.

Do you get it now?

By:
moisok
When: 13 Oct 19 20:20
yes that has rattled a cage or two -  but the fact is there are several on here who want to deflect questions about cause.

A growth in one thing has led to problems with violence.

I rest my case.
By:
detraveller
When: 13 Oct 19 20:21
Please quote the part of my post that make me a muslim apologist.
By:
detraveller
When: 13 Oct 19 20:21
Otherwise shut up.

Kind Regards.
By:
flushgordon1
When: 13 Oct 19 20:26
Do you frequent Alans Snackbar?
By:
elisjohn
When: 14 Oct 19 10:27
hell a lot of difference between mag judge and crown court judge
By:
moisok
When: 16 Oct 19 15:57
I love you traveller  - you always like to deflect when our friends appear.  crudely  a  'LOOK OVER THERE'  ploy   I know what your game is and you think you are very clever.
By:
Injera
When: 16 Oct 19 16:03
Has he been identified yet?

Loudon said she came out of work at 10.30am and encountered a black man shouting racial slurs including the N-word and being hostile towards an Arndale worker, who was also black.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/11/multiple-stabbings-reported-near-arndale-centre-in-manchester
By:
Do wah Diddy
When: 16 Oct 19 16:17
It wouldn't surprise me if he's had the Flue jab and that's what's made him like that
Most of those at My AA meeting gave me a wide berth when they saw how i
was acting after my flue jab

Theve seen everything at these meetings .but they said theve never seen anyone with every piece of clothing on them inside out and their shoes on the wrong feet
By:
saddo
When: 16 Oct 19 16:35
I once limped into a cafe before work thinking I must have a bad knee, and I looked down and saw I had two different shoes on  Blush
By:
Whisperingdeath
When: 16 Oct 19 16:40
Laugh
By:
detraveller
When: 16 Oct 19 16:44

Oct 16, 2019 -- 3:57PM, moisok wrote:


I love you traveller

By:
detraveller
When: 16 Oct 19 16:45
It was 3 days ago that I asked you to point out the part of my posts which made me a muslim apologist. You chickened and after 3 days come back with the same allegation?
By:
saddo
When: 16 Oct 19 16:45
It's a good job I stopped for brekkie, the first customer would have probably shat herself on seeing that.
By:
detraveller
When: 16 Oct 19 16:45
I know you were posting on other threads throughout the three days.
Page 2 of 3  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com