20
   

Has England really become this ridiculous?

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 12:01 pm
A jury found him guilty but he will not be sentenced until December. It is possible that the penalty will not be imposed if the judge is allowed to consider the unusual circumstances.

(It sounds like he only technically broke the law, but did nothing criminal.)
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 12:03 pm
@wandeljw,
It's likely what will happen..
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 12:07 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

Quote:
Your constantly bang on about is not going make it true..
Correct, Francis. I can say that 5 + 5 = 10 any number of times
and my saying so will not make it true.


Quote:

I've not seen, in my whole life, a man needing a gun for self-defense,
in my usual European environment...
I 'll take your word for it.

I have never seen a man get hit by a car in my whole life,
but I do not dispute that it has happened.

How about u ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 12:08 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

A jury found him guilty but he will not be sentenced until December.
It is possible that the penalty will not be imposed if the judge is allowed to consider the unusual circumstances
.

(It sounds like he only technically broke the law, but did nothing criminal.)
That is a contradiction in terms, if u r referring to a criminal law.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  4  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 12:13 pm
David wrote:
I have never seen a man get hit by a car in my whole life,
but I do not dispute that it has happened.

How about u ?


I've seen people hit by cars and I even have rescued some.

And I have seen countries where a gun is a matter of the utmost necessity.

However, it was not in Europe or the US...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 12:19 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

Yes, it seems to be more to it..

I've been reading here and it appears to be a lot more controversial..
Francis, will u explain what u found
"to appear to be a lot more controversial" ?
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 12:24 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
It was a lot more controversial because the original article didn't include all the details and the weird behavior of the guy, as many other posters noticed..
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 12:27 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

It was a lot more controversial because the original article
didn't include all the details and the weird behavior of the guy, as many other posters noticed..
Well, I 'll agree that it was weird to call the attention of the police to it,
if he did not wish to keep it for his own use,
or to just throw it in the garbage if he did not.

If he will spend a few years in prison,
it will give him time to contemplate the wisdom of trusting police.
Francis
 
  3  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 12:35 pm
David wrote:
If he will spend a few years in prison,
it will give him time to contemplate the wisdom of trusting police.


I have a hard time believing that you could have been a lawyer, David.

Was it in another life?

He will not spend years in prison for this kind of offense.

It was not the police that was not to be trusted but the justice..
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 12:54 pm
Their has been a lot of discussion - in 2002/3, if I'm not totally wrong - by the Conservative Party that Labour was watering down sentencing re Firearm Act - the minimum is and was five years.

Judges were (are?) against such minimum, and Labour tried, indeed, to lower the minimum.
But the public outcry (only the Liberal Democrats were openly on the side of the police and judges) forced, however, then Secretary of State for Justice Straw to tell Parliament that of course the minimum sentence was still there.

Judges (and juries) can't act against the law, I think.


On this Parliament publication you can find some statistics about firearm possession.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 01:03 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
if he did not wish to keep it for his own use,
or to just throw it in the garbage if he did not.


i probably wouldn't have even looked in the bag, as i stated in an earlier post, i probably would have just put it my garbage bin (not a big fan of handling other folks garbage)

how ever if i realized it was a gun i wouldn't have thrown it away, i would have called the police immediately, not the next day, and i wouldn't have brought it into my house

it seems that david would rather it be kept (illegally) or thrown away so that maybe one of those criminals he seems to fears so much could find it and use it in a crime



0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 01:11 pm
Wait! This same guy has been in trouble before:
Quote:
Man accused of attacking DVLA inspector with broom walks free
(This Is Surrey Today, September 29, 2008)

A man accused of beating a DVLA inspector with a broom handle as walked free from court after claiming his alleged victim had exaggarated the incident.

Inspector Hayden Hart had claimed he was attakced my Paul Clarke, 26, as he patrolled Wood Street, Merstham, checking parked cars for out-of-date tax discs.

The inspector said he was clubbed repeatedly by his attacker, who warned him: "If you come near my vehicle again, I'll break your f****** legs."

But Mr Clarke, of Wood Street, Merstham, walked free from the Crown Court at Guildford after winning his appeal against conviction for assault by beating at Redhill Magistrates Court on March 12 this year.

Mr Clarke, 26, of Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, denied the offence, insisting he had never actually struck Mr Hart during the confrontation on June 12 last year (2007).


The court was told that Mr Hart was driving along Wood Street stopping to inspect parked vehicles to make sure that they were displaying valid vehicle excise licenses.

Giving evidence at the appeal hearing, Mr Hart said: "I had seen four vehicles which I was going to report for not having up-to-date tax discs."

He said he was inside his Honda filling out the appropriate forms when he heard a loud bang on his window and looked up to see a young man.

Mr Hart said: "He was carrying a broom stick without the head on the end of it."

He said the man appeared very aggressive and threatened violence against him.

"As I got out of my car to ask him what he was doing, he struck me on the arm two or three times with the handle," he said.

Mr Hart said he grabbed hold of the stick and there was a scuffle before the other man walked off.

He said he suffered extensive bruising on his arm and had to have time off work because he felt so shaken by the incident.

"I felt very depressed," he said.

However, under cross-examination by defence counsel Richard McConaghy, he admitted the bruises might have been caused when he had leapt out of his vehicle to see what was going on.

Mr Clarke said he had confronted Mr Hart because he thought he had seen him trying to steal something from his pick-up truck.

"I didn't realise he was a DVLA inspector. He might have been a prolific thief," he said.

He said he had the broom because he had been sweeping up some glass in the road - and the head, which was loose, had fallen off during the fracas.

Mr Clarke accused Mr Hart of exaggerating his injuries, adding: "I reckon he wanted some time off work and compensation."

After the court was told that it was not possible to prove that the bruising to Mr Hart's arm had actually been caused by Mr Clarke, prosecuting counsel Laurence Aiolfi applied to have the offence changed from assault by beating to one of common assault.

But the judge, Mr. Recorder Stuart Lawson-Rogers, refused to agree to this - allowing Mr Clarke's appeal to succeed.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 01:23 pm
@Francis,
David wrote:
If he will spend a few years in prison,
it will give him time to contemplate the wisdom of trusting police.


Francis wrote:
I have a hard time believing that you could have been a lawyer, David.

Was it in another life?
I made a living that way for a long time, but not in England nor France.

Impressing u does me no good; I can 't put that in the bank.

I shoud add that no lawyer in America worth his salt
woud advise anyone to trust the police. That woud be shocking.



Francis wrote:
He will not spend years in prison for this kind of offense.
I have no opinion about what the English will do about it.




Francis wrote:
It was not the police that was not to be trusted but the justice..
I don't know what that sentence means,
except that I think u claim that the police ARE trustworthy.

In America, we know for a fact that this is not true
and that it is among their standard operating procedures
to employ deception in many ways. Thay deem mendacity to be appropriate on-the-job.

I have no information qua what police are doing now in England,
except that there WAS a retired English police officer who complained
of being forced to lie in his statistical calculations (before he retired)
in order to make gun control look good, e.g., making multiple felonies
committed against multiple victims at the same time & place count as only ONE crime.

I have no information whatsoever of what the police do in France,
so accordingly I will not comment thereupon.





David
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 01:56 pm
@wandeljw,
Several posters mentioned that there must be something more to this. What about Clarke's previous trouble in 2007? (see news story that I posted above)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 02:00 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Several posters mentioned that there must be something more to this.
What about Clarke's previous trouble in 2007? (see news story that I posted above)
Please explain the connection.
What does this have to do with hitting anyone with a broom ??
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 03:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Several posters mentioned that there must be something more to this.
What about Clarke's previous trouble in 2007? (see news story that I posted above)
Please explain the connection.
What does this have to do with hitting anyone with a broom ??


I thought it was odd that the local police arrested him in the first place. However, the local police is surely aware of his 2007 attack on a parking regulator.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 06:56 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Several posters mentioned that there must be something more to this.
What about Clarke's previous trouble in 2007? (see news story that I posted above)
Please explain the connection.
What does this have to do with hitting anyone with a broom ??


I thought it was odd that the local police arrested him in the first place. However, the local police is surely aware of his 2007 attack on a parking regulator.
So u think he was arrested for criminal assault, instead ?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 06:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
yeah I saw Hud, assault on a parking meter.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 07:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Here is something of a timeline:
Quote:
September 29, 2008
A man accused of beating a DVLA inspector with a broom handle as walked free from court after claiming his alleged victim had exaggarated the incident.
Inspector Hayden Hart had claimed he was attakced my Paul Clarke, 26, as he patrolled Wood Street, Merstham, checking parked cars for out-of-date tax discs.
The inspector said he was clubbed repeatedly by his attacker, who warned him: "If you come near my vehicle again, I'll break your f****** legs."
But Mr Clarke, of Wood Street, Merstham, walked free from the Crown Court at Guildford after winning his appeal against conviction for assault by beating at Redhill Magistrates Court on March 12 this year.


Quote:
November 12, 2009
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday " after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.


In September 2008, Paul Clarke wins appeal of his conviction for assaulting a "DVLA inspector". Six months later (March 2009) he walks into a police station to turn in a gun and is arrested on a technicality.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 09:33 pm
wandeljw wrote:

Here is something of a timeline:
Quote:
September 29, 2008
A man accused of beating a DVLA inspector with a broom handle
as walked free from court after claiming his alleged victim had
exaggarated the incident.
Inspector Hayden Hart had claimed he was attakced my Paul
Clarke, 26, as he patrolled Wood Street, Merstham, checking
parked cars for out-of-date tax discs.
The inspector said he was clubbed repeatedly by his attacker,
who warned him: "If you come near my vehicle again,
I'll break your f****** legs."
But Mr Clarke, of Wood Street, Merstham, walked free from
the Crown Court at Guildford after winning his appeal against
conviction for assault by beating at Redhill Magistrates Court
on March 12 this year.


Quote:
November 12, 2009
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police
faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm
at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday " after finding the gun and
handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.


In September 2008, Paul Clarke wins appeal of his conviction for
assaulting a "DVLA inspector". Six months later (March 2009) he
walks into a police station to turn in a gun and is arrested on a technicality.
He DESERVED to be arrested for co-laborating with the government.
He was guilty of complicity in gun control, by taking it to the police station.

He earned about 80 years at hard labor
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Stupid Laws Thread - Discussion by Craven de Kere
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 08:24:37