Gareth Thomas Documentary Alfie v Homophobia T
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays Online  11 Aug 17 9.52pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
But,Mr nonlawyer,he is correct about what the law is. He cited one part of it....one that is rarely used and one the human rights act pretty much contradicts. Perhaps you can explain then...if this public order act is relevant then why isn't Katie Hopkins in jail? Why isn't Piers Morgan in jail? People are gunning for them all the time. Hopkins called migrants 'cockroaches'....seems like distress would be caused by that to me....why isn't she in jail? Read the human rights act using the link I provided.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| kevlee born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 11 Aug 17 9.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
And guess what mate, intent will play its part in that decision.....that's common sense. You describe yourself as a lawyer yet you ignore what the human rights act has to say on these matters and instead cite a public order act. I do tend to be miffed if I feel someone is misleading as too the actual reality of a situation....so sorry about that....I'm sure being a 'lawyer' you can get over it. look, @m sorry to have to keep responding, but you just wont have it will you?
Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 11 Aug 17 9.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kevlee
look, @m sorry to have to keep responding, but you just wont have it will you? No, just answer the questions. Why aren't Katie Hopkins or Piers Morgan or many others in jail if what you are citing is relevant to this discussion. Why have you not explained how the human rights act pretty much renders this order pointless to this discussion? Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 10.01pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kevlee born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 11 Aug 17 10.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
No, just answer the questions. Why aren't Katie Hopkins or Piers Morgan or many others in jail if what you are citing is relevant to this discussion. Why have you not explained how the human rights act pretty much renders this order pointless to this discussion? Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 10.01pm) I don't I know why Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan are not in jail. The decision to prosecute is a CPS matter of judgement and resources. In any event the sentence would be relatively minor, and certainly not a jail sentence. And the HRA does not excuse what would otherwise be criminal behaviour. In other words it would not be a defence to a s.5 proven charge.
Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 11 Aug 17 10.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kevlee
I don't I know why Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan are not in jail. The decision to prosecute is a CPS matter of judgement and resources. In any event the sentence would be relatively minor, and certainly not a jail sentence. And the HRA does not excuse what would otherwise be criminal behaviour. In other words it would not be a defence to a s.5 proven charge. I think you are talking nonsense. If she is breaking the law with 'distress and 'alarm'...intent doesn't matter and it's 'objective' not 'subjective' then the CPS have had.....many many many instances where they could prosecute. Calling migrants, 'cockroaches' seems pretty much to fit with that public order....according to you...nothing standing in the way. If the human rights act doesn't support her Mr Lawyer then what problem would the CPS have taking her to court? Resources? Well, according to you...seems like an open and shut case. Perhaps the truth is you don't know what you are talking about. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 10.16pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 11 Aug 17 10.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
No, just answer the questions. Why aren't Katie Hopkins or Piers Morgan or many others in jail if what you are citing is relevant to this discussion. Why have you not explained how the human rights act pretty much renders this order pointless to this discussion? Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 10.01pm) He has explained already.Get over it.Decisions to prosecute or not are made by the CPS. For current CPS guidance re S5,see their website Edited by legaleagle (11 Aug 2017 10.18pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 11 Aug 17 10.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I think you are talking nonsense. If she is breaking the law with 'distress and 'alarm'...intent doesn't matter and it's 'objective' not 'subjective' then the CPS have had.....many many many instances where they could prosecute. Calling migrants, 'cockroaches' seems pretty much to fit with that public order....according to you...nothing standing in the way. If the human rights act doesn't support her Mr Lawyer then what problem would the CPS have taking her to court? Resources? Well, according to you...seems like an open and shut case. Perhaps the truth is you don't know what you are talking about. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 10.16pm) To quote you:"Perhaps the truth is you don't know what you are talking about".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 11 Aug 17 10.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
He has explained already.Get over it.Decisions to prosecute or not are made by the CPS. For current CPS guidance re S6,see their website According to him....you can go breaking the law all the time right in the public space with loads of people complaining about you and reporting you to the Police and the CPS won't prosecute because.....well....not explained...They just don't have the time or resources.....funny really because according to him she has no defence and can't use the human rights act. Bah! Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 10.48pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 11 Aug 17 10.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
To quote you:"Perhaps the truth is you don't know what you are talking about". The nearest you come to the truth of the matter is quoting me....in traditional legal fashion though you attempt to twist it.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rachid Rachid Rachid 11 Aug 17 11.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Nobody should be abused at a football or rugby match for their sexuality or race, or any other reason, but the reality would appear that football is massively more popular than rugby and being a cVnt seems to be a problem with society generally. As an aside one of the cringiest and most disgusting chants I've heard was at the home game against Man Utd early in 2014 and directed at David Moyes. A bit of swearing one thing but seriously ?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 11 Aug 17 11.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If it qualifies for 'incitement' then like I've said....the law can get involved....This is what the law actually is Kermit. Show me where in the law, it says 'words are violence'. It isn't there......Intent....incitement....god sake how many fcuking times. If it qualifies for 'incitement' then the law gets involved. However, there involvement is rarely anything like as serious as if violence actually took place...they have to make a judgement to that actual intent. Say the word slowly to yourself Kermit...come on....exercise that one brain cell....i n t e n t.....slowly now...you can do it. The only 's***ting' going on is me reading your posts and s***ting myself laughing.....But this will be my last word on this with you....I'm frigging bored repeating myself. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Aug 2017 9.02pm) So, very basically, what you are saying is that once the law is involved, law that has been determined by others, then our own thought processes, our own judgements, must take a back seat and must be deemed to be non-consequential and intellectually inferior. Well you conform even if something is wrong if you want to. Not for me. Baaaaa.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Dan1994 Wallington 12 Aug 17 1.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Eagles eat Seagulls!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.