Barton Battered.

[doveston]

just keeping the debate going.
youve obv googled the same **** i did

 

[doveston]

.

 

[DMD]

Cheers for that but on this one you know you're wrong and I'm right.

No need for an apology.

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.

 

[Carmine Galante.]

"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.

 

[City1904]

When did this happen then ?

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!

 

[DMD]

"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.

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.

 

[Carmine Galante.]

Cheers for that but on this one you know you're wrong and I'm right.

No need for an apology.

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.

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.

 

[doveston]

"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.

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"

 

[doveston]

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!

was the wrong one so i binned it

 

[Carmine Galante.]

"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.

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"

I can't make head nor tail of that mate. Soz.

 

[doveston]

I can't make head nor tail of that mate. Soz.

and theres me thinking you might know what the **** your talking about.

 

[Carmine Galante.]

I can't make head nor tail of that mate. Soz.

and theres me thinking you might know what the **** your talking about.

The wording implies they chased 'HIM' so how would he be guilty ?

That's what I was getting at.

 

[DMD]

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.

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.

 

[Carmine Galante.]

That's his account, it's very naive to believe one side of the story.

If this incident occurred in a park there may have been numerous independent witnesses who tell a completely different story.

Those facts just don't add up to me.

I guessed your answer would be one of denial, that's why I didn't bother putting ones I've personal knowledge of. There's plenty of others that show you can be charged with affray when you've been defending yourself.

I'll stand corrected but I think if there's two people involved and they want to charge the aggressor with affray, they have to charge both parties.

That's wrong as well.

 

[Carmine Galante.]

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.

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.

 

[doveston]

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.

[video=youtube;QlcCjGG0XAk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlcCjGG0XAk[/video]

 

[DMD]

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?

 

[Carmine Galante.]

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 th

A typical DMD response.

Go back and read my posts. The answer is clear to see.

 

[Hull City Wok Tiger]

Hes a twat end of, glad he got smacked, lets not read too much into it. He lived to tell the tale anyway.

Repeat, and rinse.

 

[DMD]

A typical DMD response.

Go back and read my posts. The answer is clear to see.

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?