2 weeks for peeing on (beside) a memorial > Betfair Community

Betfair Community

Home › Chit Chat Forum › 2 weeks for peeing on (beside) a memorial

Switch to Community Classic App Directory

Chit Chat

‹ back to topics

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

These 103 comments are related to the topic:
2 weeks for peeing on (beside) a memorial

Switch to Live View refresh Post Reply

Post your reply

Page 2 of 3 • Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 103

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 18:22

Jun 15, 2020 -- 5:36PM, 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.

By:

the.mad.dog.man When: 15 Jun 20 18:39

your a right charlie you was named well lol

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 18:42

Maybe I am. But you certainly should have added rabid after mad.

By:

nineteen points When: 15 Jun 20 18:42

had he been a promising footballer he might of got off

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 18:44

lewd, obscene or of disgusting character

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.

By:

1st time poster When: 15 Jun 20 18:44

have casemoney and inerja got the name of the man murdered at Saturdays troubles yet

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 18:46

lewd

crude and offensive in a sexual way.

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 18:47

Whacking your chopper out, peeing next to a memorial and letting it run over your own trainers is pretty disgusting.

By:

the.mad.dog.man When: 15 Jun 20 18:47

if he were black no way 14 days

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 18:49

Your name should be the.mad.rabid.dog.mind.reading.man

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 18:49

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.

By:

BennyBinion1 When: 15 Jun 20 18:50

If he stabbed the queen, and was black, he wouldn't get 14 days.....

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 18:50

It's just a trophy prosecution.

By:

1st time poster When: 15 Jun 20 18:51

any update on casemoney/inerja,s murdered pal yet

By:

BennyBinion1 When: 15 Jun 20 18:51

Worrying times.

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 18:52

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.

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.

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 18:53

Have you not heard of the legal concept of precedent. Irrelevant

By:

the.mad.dog.man When: 15 Jun 20 18:54

if he had pissed over charlie he would have got 14 days in spain best hotel lol

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 18:54

I have and why the smiley face?

By:

1st time poster When: 15 Jun 20 18:54

wonder how long the black lad will get for murdering inerja/casemoney,s pal,and how long will the lad who slashed their mate,s throat get

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 18:55

Jun 15, 2020 -- 6:54PM, the.mad.dog.man wrote:

if he had pissed over charlie

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 18:56

Sorry you double spacing tw@t.

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 18:56

Laughing at your hopeless argument. Literally the same thing happening thousands of times previously with a different legal outcome is irrelevant

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 18:58

Of course the key element is whether he was guilty of targeting the memorial specifically. No sane person would agree that he was.

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 18:59

Jun 15, 2020 -- 6:53PM, 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.

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 15 Jun 20 19:01

Not much point in arguing over what he was convicted of when he pled guilty to it.

By:

1st time poster When: 15 Jun 20 19:02

heard a rumour they've got someone for inerja,s/casemoney murder,just need a body now

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 19:04

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 character

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 19:05

Jun 15, 2020 -- 7:01PM, 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.

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 19:07

Jun 15, 2020 -- 6:58PM, 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?

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 19:09

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.

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 15 Jun 20 19:10

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.

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 19:11

The point stands. I don't think pleading not guilty would have elevated his reputation.

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 19:12

Jun 15, 2020 -- 7:09PM, 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.

By:

1st time poster When: 15 Jun 20 19:14

wonder if the dad of the lad all over social media/newspapers doing monkey chants and monkey impersonation will out him

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 19:14

If you are arguing by pretty disgusting you didn't mean disgusting then I don't believe you.

By:

Shrewd_dude When: 15 Jun 20 19:15

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.

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 19:16

What examples are there?
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.

By:

Cider When: 15 Jun 20 19:18

Jun 15, 2020 -- 7:15PM, 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.

By:

Charlie When: 15 Jun 20 19:18

So would you care to answer my questions? I'm getting bored of you again.