You're up late for one so young. Are you changing your tune again and claiming that people are never charged with affray when they've been defending themselves? It'd be a silly thing to do after you've just agreed that it does in deed happen.
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large." Assault is a criminal offence. It's fairly obvious that the above legislation( sect 3 criminal law act 1967) protects those who use reasonable force whilst preventing a criminal offence( assault for example) from taking place. I rest my case.
Not even sure if the link doveston sent is the one, but i was thinking of one completely different! Wasn't that long ago, but saying that it could be 2008ish, i will try getting a link for you but i was just saying that as an example off the top of my head i am sure there are far more. Anyway my point is about anyone condoning violence is completely and utterly wrong, and they should themselves consider some form of counselling. Nothing about the laws themsleves, as i assure you, you will know far more than me!
Butter is currently cheaper in Tesco, but that too doesn't alter the fact that people have been charged with affray when they themselves were the ones attacked.
You don't half come out with some nonsense. You don't know when you're beaten and to call me childish is laughable. Cheap insults .....tut tut. You should know better.
so what your saying is barton is guilty since he started it becuase the 2 accusers have been relaesed. "chased and caught him and then punched him"
Eh? You strongly claimed (with associated childish comments)that it was all bollocks and that people cannot be charged with affray when they've been attacked. You then give an "Ah but" type response when you see one example of where someone has been charged with affray when they were the ones attacked. The "Ah but" acknowledges that it does in deed happen. You're making yourself look a bit of a fool to be fair.
I suggest you read the whole thread and see who's making a fool of themselves. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Honestly, not a clue.
Yep, it must be a full moon. Are you saying that people cannot be charged with affray if they are the ones that were attacked? Please try to keep your answer brief. A yes or a no should cover it, but please remember that there's an example on here where someone was charged with affray when they were attacked. There's no need to go into the defence or prosecution arguments, the question is, can someone be charged?
Is that the one where you say, yes it is possible, the one where you say no it isn't or the one where you're just childishly abusive?
