Chit Chat
Do you think this sentence is justified?
My answer is no
Fine him, get him doing some community service, maybe cleaning up his mess.
Gets a suspended sentence and a new flat. Happy days.
Banks, a Tottenham Hotspur fan, was said to have mental health problems, the court heard. Explains a few things.
A total of 113 people were arrested and the protest was condemned by Boris Johnson as “racist thuggery” and described as “mindless hooliganism” by police.
slightly more coherent..
Will these fine young gentlemen hand themselves in? I presume the media are publicly shaming them?
Jun 15, 2020 -- 9:34AM, HGS wrote:
Not at all Charlie. NOBODY, especially with no criminal record should be receiving a jail sentence for this.
I'll accept your stance but just look at any of the numerous posts about BLM and you'll find that the above posters (it's normally the same ones) have an entirely different attitude then.
Where was the racism? Anger at the Met for not doing their job and fury at scum who would deface Churchill and the Cenotaph.
Like all lefties, Boris brings skin colour into it to tarnish patriots who give a damn.
Jun 15, 2020 -- 9:40AM, doridoru wrote:
NO DISGUSTING JOKE...KHAN LABOUR JUSTICE
Why do you think it is "KHAN LABOUR JUSTICE"?
Pink Floyd's Ian Gilmour's son got more than a year from swinging from the Cenotaph iirc.
He got 14 days in prison!!!!
We are all doomed....
Well, a certain race is
Ends up going to jail. It is always nice when the story has a happy ending. Hooroo
bloke gets his throat slashed doesn't bother with hospital puts a bit of tape on it,and jogs on,
or casemoney.injera could be telling porkies ,although inerja was there alongside the other 6,999
Jun 15, 2020 -- 11:36AM, Cider wrote:
Clearly not guilty of what he was charged with, there's photographic evidence! How long should someone get for being a drunken idiot. Not many people in their 20s have not done something regrettable under the influence of alcohol.
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/outraging-public-decency/
Outraging public decency
What constitutes outraging public decency?
Public decency is a level of behaviour which is generally acceptable to the public and is not obscene, disgusting or shocking for the observers.
Outraging public decency is an indictable common law offence which is punishable by unlimited imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. To be guilty of this offence:
you must carry out an act which is lewd, obscene or of disgusting character, which outrages minimum standards of public decency as assessed by the jury;
the act must take place in a public place, or a place which is accessible to, or within view of, the public;
the act must take place in the actual presence of two or more persons who are capable of seeing it – it is irrelevant whether these people actually saw the act or were outraged by it.
Guilty as charged.
Waving your willy in front of people is lewd. Peeing in a corner where nothing is visible is most certainly not. Clearly it's undesirable but happens in most towns on a Friday and Saturday as well as after football matches and horse race meetings. In ordinary times. They don't get two weeks bird.
Jun 15, 2020 -- 12:47PM, Charlie wrote:
Whacking your chopper out, peeing next to a memorial and letting it run over your own trainers is pretty disgusting.
I agree, doesn't make it outraging public decency. As I write it happens hundreds of times a week across the country.
Jun 15, 2020 -- 12:49PM, Cider wrote:
Jun 15, 2020 -- 6:47PM, Charlie wrote:Whacking your chopper out, peeing next to a memorial and letting it run over your own trainers is pretty disgusting.I agree, doesn't make it outraging public decency. As I write it happens hundreds of times a week across the country.
Wrong read the definition I gave above. Whether it does or doesn't happen hundreds of times a week across the country is irrelevant and is a shot at deflection.
Jun 15, 2020 -- 12:54PM, the.mad.dog.man wrote:
if he had pissed over charlie
Jun 15, 2020 -- 12:53PM, Cider wrote:
Have you not heard of the legal concept of precedent. Irrelevant
So what exactly are you saying? Try and be clear, I think you will find my posts are.
Jun 15, 2020 -- 12:49PM, Cider wrote:
Jun 15, 2020 -- 6:47PM, Charlie wrote:Whacking your chopper out, peeing next to a memorial and letting it run over your own trainers is pretty disgusting.I agree, doesn't make it outraging public decency. As I write it happens hundreds of times a week across the country.
Ffs you have just agreed it was disgusting. The definition says you must carry out an act which is lewd, obscene or of disgusting character
You seem to be arguing against yourself.
Jun 15, 2020 -- 1:01PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:
Not much point in arguing over what he was convicted of when he pled guilty to it.
In this situation with the bollocking off his old man he would have pled guilty to whatever was put in front of him I expect. It would be curious to see what legal assistance he received, if any.
Jun 15, 2020 -- 12:58PM, Cider wrote:
Of course the key element is whether he was guilty of targeting the memorial specifically. No sane person would agree that he was.
So was he acting in a disgusting manner or not?
Jun 15, 2020 -- 1:04PM, Charlie wrote:
Jun 15, 2020 -- 6:49PM, Cider wrote:Jun 15, 2020 -- 6:47PM, Charlie wrote:Whacking your chopper out, peeing next to a memorial and letting it run over your own trainers is pretty disgusting.I agree, doesn't make it outraging public decency. As I write it happens hundreds of times a week across the country.Ffs you have just agreed it was disgusting. The definition says you must carry out an act which is lewd, obscene or of disgusting characterYou seem to be arguing against yourself.
Pretty disgusting = disgusting character. In Charlie's world
You can do something pretty disgusting under the influence of alcohol. It happens a lot. If this has set a new legal precedent that anyone who pees in public gets 14 days then you may be correct.
In this situation with the bollocking off his old man he would have pled guilty to whatever was put in front of him I expect. It would be curious to see what legal assistance he received, if any.
He's a grown man and presumably had access to the court duty solicitor.
Jun 15, 2020 -- 1:09PM, Cider wrote:
Jun 15, 2020 -- 7:04PM, Charlie wrote:Jun 15, 2020 -- 6:49PM, Cider wrote:Jun 15, 2020 -- 6:47PM, Charlie wrote:Whacking your chopper out, peeing next to a memorial and letting it run over your own trainers is pretty disgusting.I agree, doesn't make it outraging public decency. As I write it happens hundreds of times a week across the country.Ffs you have just agreed it was disgusting. The definition says you must carry out an act which is lewd, obscene or of disgusting characterYou seem to be arguing against yourself.Pretty disgusting = disgusting character. In Charlie's world You can do something pretty disgusting under the influence of alcohol. It happens a lot. If this has set a new legal precedent that anyone who pees in public gets 14 days then you may be correct.
Do you have any idea of how many people per year are charged with outraging public decency? Do you know how many of those have been charged with pissing next to a memorial or pissing in the street? You seem to imply that both of those are zero with your setting a precedent remark.
It doesn't really. You could say that about literally every case where anyone pleads guilty.
A famous example is that of the artist Rick Gibson, who exhibited a pair of earrings made from freeze-dried human foetuses and the Young Unkowns Gallery in London.
The Metropolitan Police seized the earrings on 3 December 1987, and the following April the Crown Prosecution Service charged Gibson and Peter Sylveire, the gallery owner, with exhibiting a public nuisance and outraging public decency.
It was the first time the public decency charge was used in more than 80 years.
Gibson and Sylveire were trialled at the Old Bailey beginning on 30 January 1989 and they were found guilty of outraging public decency.
They were fined £500 and £300 respectively and failed in their appeal.
That sentencing has contributed to resurrecting the offence.
In September 2017, a couple were found guilty of outraging public decency after they brazenly romped in a pizza shop in front of staff.
Jun 15, 2020 -- 1:15PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:
The point stands. I don't think pleading not guilty would have elevated his reputation.It doesn't really. You could say that about literally every case where anyone pleads guilty.
How many times has the evidence been broadcast worldwide.
If you say jump I say how high. Not. Look it up for yourself.
How many times has the evidence been broadcast worldwide.
That's not really relevant. I agree the sentence is harsh and wouldn't be surprised if it was appealed but as it stands the two legally qualified solicitors presumably agree that the charge was appropriate and so does the person who committed the act.
No I don't. But your clearly trying to make a completely different point now. The fact that it was broadcast round the world is irrelevant to your suggestion that he would have just plead to whatever they put in front of him.
PC Palmer was killed because this country has taken a knee for the spread of Islam. Attacks therefore became inevitable. The people who refuse to let this country die are the ones labelled far right racists. The very people who have been labelled racist for challenging Islam.
Here are some ‘hooligans’ that were there on Saturday .....
https://i.postimg.cc/7LhPrH4h/paras.jpg
And no, there were no toilets open. I’ll say no more.
Perhaps that’s why the Government released Thousands of real criminals recently, to make room for those caught taking a piss.
Doubt there’s a copper in the Country who hasn’t done the same when desperate, I’d take short odds that the magistrate that sentenced the guy has done the same sometime in his life.
and turned out it wasn't him.
Little mention in the reporting of his 'mental health issues'. Wouldn't it be normal to request psychiatric reports or medical evidence before a custodial sentence?
