Don't believe you. Promise never to post again if you say it again?
You give sophistry a bad name.
You are smearing them - you're saying they "may be" allowing this - I want to see the signed documents where they gave you permission.
Is it time for a boycott of all Israeli goods?
- Thread starter Divisive Cotton
- Start date
Don't believe you. Promise never to post again if you say it again?
You give sophistry a bad name.
You are smearing them - you're saying they "may be" allowing this - I want to see the signed documents where they gave you permission.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
You apparently don't intend to do it but do it you will and repeatedly.....
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
No, and I strongly suspect you know what you're doing in trying to provoke me into making such an accusation in public.
I am putting you on ignore because of this.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
What a bizarre thing to say and do. I'm trying to get you to say what you mean.
I guess I can see why you might not like that.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Of course not, but maybe I really should look into changing to Cassandra!
Listen - if you all don't see they way things look, do what you want.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Regardles of any alleged anti-Semetic intent, it looks like Mr Galloway should be facing charges of incitement to riot and commit criminal damage.
Campaigns of direct action against certain businesses, populist politicos making firey speeches and boycotts. Would you care to explain how any of that is different to any other lefty campaign?
winjer
holocene death beat
Right-o, and could you explain - for the benefit of the jury - why by "shut down" he couldn't have meant like this:
'Demo forces Israeli-owned shop to close'
http://www.wigantoday.net/latest-london-news/Demo-forces-Israeliowned-shop-to.4863554.jp
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
No, because I'm not a criminal barrister.
From a layman's point of view it appears that there's a prima facie case for the new offence of "encouragement". (It seems that incitement was repealed recently.) Even if it can't be proved that Mr Galloway intended to incite illegal acts, there's a legal theory called "reckless disregard" (for the consequences of your words) that may be applicable.
From the report, it looks like those protestors are guilty of obstruction, aggravated tresspass, and preach of the peace, and criminal damage if they harmed the door they attached themselves to, so I don't see what's so wonderful about their methods.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Erm no. It's was never necessary for someone to act on the incitement for it to be an offence. (I assume this carries over to "encouragement".) The failure of one group of protestors to act out a worst case scenario doesn't prove anything.
cantsin
Well-Known Member
ffs , what a timewasting dickhead - this all SHITE you bassoon
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Sure as fuck sounded like what you were saying, or don't you like it being spelled out clearly?
winjer
holocene death beat
It certainly could not be applicable, one cannot recklessly assist or encourage, since these offences require specific intent.
Obstruction of what or who?
Two of the four elements required to prove aggravated trespass appear to be lacking.
Please do explain what breach of the peace occurred, Mr Dershowitz.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Thanks for the clarification.
I assume Mr Galloway could be prosecuted if intent could be proved? I admit this would be very hard: as ever, Mr Galloway pushes it close, but seems to know which side of the law to say on.
People from entering the shop. Does the common law offence of obsruction not cover this?
What are the missing elements of aggravated tresspass, BTW? The statue mentions the "open air", is that what you're referring to?
As for BotP, the Court of Appeal definies it as "an act done or threatened to be done which either actually harms a person, or in his presence, his property, or is likely to cause such harm being done". That seems pretty broad, and, potentially, applicable to this situation.
I'm not sure what you mean by the silly reference to Professor Dershowitz, as I already made quite clear I was a layman and pretended to no special legal knowledge of any kind. I'm just querying if it's lawful for protesters to chain themselves to a shop door and bar entry to the public.
We all know what George galloway is like .He is there to whip up a frenzy and get people to storm Israeli shops etc.
I bet he would'nt storm the shops himself would he?
To galloway this is a vested interest he does this for a living.
Yes your right
Galloway is doing this for a living. He is a political parasite.
He will whip up the crowd to attack jewish business but I bet he would'nt himself.
He's becomming like the new Hitler
While it blatantly isn't lawful for protesters to chain themselves to shop doors, there's no "common law offence of obstruction". Perhaps you're thinking of willful obstruction of the highway?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
this is clear. I'd love it if there really was a crime of 'preach of the peace' - the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if Labour brought such a law in. Tho I'm less keen on the talking statues, even if they are only are only talking about the 'open air'
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
I think Fullyplumped is giving a comparison that is extremely offensive. The comparing of what happened in Nazi Germany to the disruption of a West End boutique in Britain in 2008 is an insult to all the millions that died in Germany during that era.
winjer
holocene death beat
Nothing blatant about it, it may be unlawful but that depends on the prevailing circumstances.
winjer
holocene death beat
He could be arrested and charged if criminal intent could be imputed to him (I can't see that it could) but the question of whether it could be proved is a matter for trial.
There isn't a general offence of obstruction that I've ever heard of, but there are various offences of Obstruction of Something or Someone, hence my question.
No, that would be part of one element, had the words "open air" not been removed five years ago (Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 Schedule 3 para.1)
The four elements of aggravated trespass are:
Trespass
A 2nd act, distinct from trespass
With a specific intent
In relation to lawful activity
It's the latter two on which any trial will depend, and possibly even the first with a clever lawyer / crap prosecutor.
That was actually an enormous narrowing of BotP - compare it to the Scottish offence. The case you quoted from was R v Howell, here's what the Lord Bingham had to say about it, in Laporte (the Fairford coaches case), which is currently the lead case on Breach of the Peace:
The legal concept of a breach of the peace, although much used, was for many years understood as a term of broad but somewhat indeterminate meaning. In R v Howell (Errol) [1982] QB 416 the Court of Appeal heard detailed argument on the meaning of the expression, an issue raised by the facts of the case. The court concluded that the essence of the concept was to be found in violence or threatened violence.
And Professor Glanville Williams, in an article entitled 'Arrest for Breach of the Peace' said:
If the person of whom complaint is made has lawfully entered the house of another, his refusal to leave on the request of the occupier is not a breach of the peace. Such refusal gives cause for ejecting him, but not for arrest (Green v. Bartram (1830) 4 C.& P. 308; Reece v. Taylor (1835) 4 Nev. & M.K.B. 469; Jordan v. Gibbon (1863) 8 L.T. 391). However, if he attacks the occupier in order to resist ejection, this will amount to a battery, and there will be a breach of the peace for which an arrest is admissible.
You started off by disclaiming yourself as not a barrister, but then went on to declare which offences those protesters "are guilty of" which is a higher standard than may have committed, or should be charged with, hence my teasing.
It's one thing to suggest that someone has done something unlawful, or even wrong, it's quite another to pronounce on the finer points of proof and guilt without being able to make even a prima facie attempt at justification.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Since when has "Israeli" been a euphemism for "Jew"? Since you just made it up?
In 45+ years of sentience, I've never once been referred to as an "Israeli" despite being open to the extent of provocation about being a Jew, and yet you, a recent convert and Zionist, believe the one is a euphemism for the other because a politician you dislike says one thing that you want to mean another.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'm afraid to inform you that you're neither a seer or a gossip columnist.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No, they don't.
If you were as au fait with 1930s history as you are pretending to be, you'd know that what Galloway's cretinous behaviour most closely resembles is the idiocy of the British far-right, and the denunciatory witterings of Judaeophobes such as Mosley, Chesterton and Joyce.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Galloway is doing this for a living. He is a political parasite.
He will whip up the crowd to attack jewish business but I bet he would'nt himself.
He's becomming like the new Hitler
Twat.
Galloway is a parasite. If his paymaster were anti-Muslim he'd attack Muslims. It's nothing to do with Hitler, and everything to do with being an opportunistic cock-knocker.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fullyplumped is setting herself up as a soothsayer, predicting a new age of British Judaeophobia.
The fact that, as a Labour party hack, she has an interest in painting Galloway in as unflattering a light as possible (as if one could make him appear worse than he does himself) is obviously not a motivation.
As for the "comparison", I agree that it is offensive in the extreme. To compare destructive vandalism that was undertaken as part of a campaign to make Nazi Germany Judenrein with some political posturing outside a boutique that caused a little commercial disruption is utterly ridiculous, as is speculation that the latter could lead, inexorably, to anything resembling the former.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You can salute my raging haemorrhoids for all I care!
Similar threads
