Woman arrested over 'bang' remark to Pc blinded by Moat

[donkey 10]

One of the main rerasons for having a strict code of law is that people can be protected from prosecution because others don't like what they think or how they behave, no matter how outrageous it seems, so long as that behaviour remains within the law.

 

We don't know all the details, but if the aresst was merely on the basis that she said 'Bang Bang' then this is a clear case of manipulating the laws on breach of the peace for just such a malicious prosecution, and by the very people who are supposed to uphold the law themselves. No matter how sick her comment was, if we start prosecuting people because we - or in this case the police - don't like what they think, it's the thin end of the wedge.

[Mr Prime 10]

One of the main rerasons for having a strict code of law is that people can be protected from prosecution because others don't like what they think or how they behave, no matter how outrageous it seems, so long as that behaviour remains within the law.

 

We don't know all the details, but if the aresst was merely on the basis that she said 'Bang Bang' then this is a clear case of manipulating the laws on breach of the peace for just such a malicious prosecution, and by the very people who are supposed to uphold the law themselves. No matter how sick her comment was, if we start prosecuting people because we - or in this case the police - don't like what they think, it's the thin end of the wedge.

 

All true but the law is simple on this, behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress is punishable under the Public Order Act. The Islamic extremists who ranted during the remembrance day ceremony last year were nicked for the same reason. They and their briefs no doubt said they shouldn't be nicked simply because others don't like what they say. It's also the case that it is illegal to serve a drunk and to swear so the law is clear but seldom enforced for obvious reasons. When it's absolutely repulsive bad taste like this woman and the Islamic extremists they deserve to be severely punished.

[leelax 10]

One of the main rerasons for having a strict code of law is that people can be protected from prosecution because others don't like what they think or how they behave, no matter how outrageous it seems, so long as that behaviour remains within the law.

 

We don't know all the details, but if the aresst was merely on the basis that she said 'Bang Bang' then this is a clear case of manipulating the laws on breach of the peace for just such a malicious prosecution, and by the very people who are supposed to uphold the law themselves. No matter how sick her comment was, if we start prosecuting people because we - or in this case the police - don't like what they think, it's the thin end of the wedge.

 

Behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace is or was in my day an offence.

This womans behavior fits into that category wouldn't you agree?

[HeadingNorth 11]

One of the main rerasons for having a strict code of law is that people can be protected from prosecution because others don't like what they think or how they behave, no matter how outrageous it seems, so long as that behaviour remains within the law.

 

Which, in this case, it has not done.

[donkey 10]

Behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace is or was in my day an offence.

This womans behavior fits into that category wouldn't you agree?

 

I would have to know the details to make such a judgement. If the incident was over and she had moved away without causing a breach of the peace then no I wouldn't. If she was hanging around to further taunt the man and his family/friends then yes I would agree.

[HeadingNorth 11]

I would have to know the details to make such a judgement. If the incident was over and she had moved away without causing a breach of the peace then no I wouldn't. If she was hanging around to further taunt the man and his family/friends then yes I would agree.

 

You've entirely missed the point. The question is about behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace; you can't wait to see whether it does or not. You have to make a decision now.

[donkey 10]

You've entirely missed the point.

 

No I haven't.

 

The question is about behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace; you can't wait to see whether it does or not. You have to make a decision now.

 

That would only apply if she was arrested at the time the incident took place. If she was arrested later, it would be hard to see how they could say they were acting in the interests of preventing a breach of the peace, when the incident was over and had not cause a breach of the peace.

[LordChaverly 10]

No I haven't.

 

 

 

That would only apply if she was arrested at the time the incident took place. If she was arrested later, it would be hard to see how they could say they were acting in the interests of preventing a breach of the peace, when the incident was over and had not cause a breach of the peace.

 

The operative word here is 'likely'. Just because in this instance it did not cause a breach of the peace, the fact that it could well have done is in my view sufficient grounds for prosecution in this case.

[HeadingNorth 11]

That would only apply if she was arrested at the time the incident took place...

 

...which is the one thing we actually know!

[donkey 10]

...which is the one thing we actually know!

 

It doesn't say so in the article, so how do you know?

[leelax 10]

It doesn't say so in the article, so how do you know?

 

It happened outside the front door and she was arrested on the fourth floor inside the building.

She said "Bang Bang" and pointed her hand as if it was a gun.

Threatening to kill could be a charge more suitable.

[newboy2011 10]

now, i know what she did was disgusting, and morally reprehensible, but arresting her seems a bit much if 'all' she did was to say bang bang. what say you?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-12621864?cid=dlvr.it

 

disgusting individual. doubt she will be charged, but right she was arrested.