Common as Mook
Not Posh as Fook
- Jul 26, 2004
- 5,631
I'd much prefer time was spent investigating Harriet Harman's paedophilic sympathies.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Caroline Lucas NOT guilty
- Thread starter Pinkie Brown
- Start date
But where's TIMMY
D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
But where's TIMMY
Heeeererrrrrreeeeee'ssssss Timmy
Whatever happened to 'Ignorance of the law is no defence'?
Incorrect, just made worse.
aolstudios
Well-known member
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Yes. Very good. The same press that are so supportive of her and her party's policies or indeed any other policy that doesn't fit in with their oligarchic and insular agenda -- the very same agenda you've so wilfully bought in to.
Er, sorry, who's bought into what agenda?
BBassic
I changed this.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 12,354
People with a basic grasp of their language would be punished? You really are a cretin. It saddens me that we have the Albion in common.
The Large One
Who's Next?
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,631
I did joke with a work colleague who lived in Worthing that, should he ever wish to commit a terrible misdemeanour, he should wait till he crosses the Brighton & Hove boundary. Then when he goes to court he could simply blame the Green Party.
Coming from you I won't.
Shropshire Seagull
Well-known member
I suspect spelling and grammar would be the least of concern .....
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Apologies. It was only later that I noticed that your post was heavily laden with sarcasm, something that I lacked the subtlety to detect.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
You don't seem to like politicians. Given this, the options are, you're:
-- an anarchist and, as a consequence, contest power, hierarchy and rules wherever they exist or, at the very least, where you conceive them to exist
-- a direct democrat, a bit like Mustafa
-- someone who likes a certain type of politician, but not the current lot; usually, the 'certain type' is akin to Hitler, Griffin or even Farage
-- some other alternative that you might want to enlighten us of
Which one is it?
Horton's halftime iceberg
Blooming Marvellous
The charge was wilful obstruction and breaching an order that I don't believe was legally set up, on the wilful obstruction of highway it normally works by a police officer asking you to move and then when you don't they can arrest you for not moving. In this case it was shown that the accused were willing to move and that they were not at any time told where they could peacefully protest.
The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the right to pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and the right to make ordinary and ‘reasonable use’ of the highway. To hold peaceful assemblies that do not prevent other people from also using the highway is likely to be seen as a ‘reasonable use’ of the highway. In addition, the Article 11 of the Convention guarantees the right to assembly, so you have a positive right, both from the common law and from the European Convention on Human Rights, to use the highway to hold peaceful, non-obstructive assemblies.
However, unreasonable obstruction of the highway is a criminal offence. This is a widely drawn offence, so the police have often seen it in practice as a licensing power over public gatherings. The police use it to remove sit-down demonstrators, to keep marchers from leaving the agreed police route, to control pickets and in every conceivable public order context on the highway. Often the police will give a warning to move before making an arrest, although there is no legal requirement to do so. However, if you were not given a warning that you were causing an obstruction, it will be easier to show that you were not making unreasonable use of the highway.
The offence is obstructing the highway, not other highway users. So it is not necessary to prove that any other person was actually obstructed - the 'obstruction' can be made out if you simply occupy a section of highway. In practice the offence turns on whether a particular obstruction was reasonable rather than whether there was, in fact, an obstruction. The test of reasonableness is always objective. Was there an actual obstruction? If there was, how long did it last? Where was it? What was its purpose?
As stated above, there is a right to use the highway for reasonable purposes, so the test of reasonableness can very often be argued successfully in demonstration cases, particularly where the police have taken no action in the past, or where the actual obstruction was trivial. In practice, it is often very helpful to have photographs to show just how extensive - or limited - a particular obstruction was.
Since the incorporation of the Convention any court considering the question of reasonableness would also have to consider the impact of their decision on the exercise of your Convention rights. So, for example, a demonstrator who is prosecuted for obstruction of the highway may be able to invoke the right to peaceful assembly in Article 11 as a defence in the Magistrates' Court.
The offence can be tried in the Magistrates' Court only. The maximum penalty is a fine up to level 3 (currently £1,000). There is no power to send a person convicted of highway obstruction to prison.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
What a surprise she was found not guilty, such shock/horror
