Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell me how you manage and measure a wildly numerous population, without surveillance in one form or another ? . How you identify and assess threats and risks ? If you don’t measure, you cannot manage, and thus you can only be “reactive”. That’s too late for the innocents who lose loved ones in a terrorist attack. Then the questions will be, “Why did no one know about this ? Why was no action taken ?” . Laws may exist to deter (though that’s debatable to a high degree). Prisons and sentencing exist to mop up after the criminal deed. Surveillance then and pre-emptive action is the first line of defence, because without it you are relying on an individual’s sense of right and wrong, and the law of the land. Things which mean nothing to some. I’m a libertarian, so the rights of the individual are of paramount importance to me. But that ends when those rights infringe on others, especially when they could cause harm. . Unlike some libertarian’s, I do value surveillance of the individual where appropriate. There needs to be an auditable reason for that surveillance, so someone can be held to account and that it was not frivolous. That’s good governance. . But I agree that oversight needs guard-rails and should be centred on law enforcement and prevention. " But mass digital surveillance on every conceivable facet of every individual's life is a world not worth living in. The imbalance of power is hideously skewed, and we're virtually there now. Privacy and consent are actual things inscribed into the human story, and are worth protecting at all costs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unfortunately, we look up to the politicians to protect us and we give them the power to do so. The more we rely on them to protect us, the more power they get. And we can't guarantee that this power will be used only for good and not for oppressing people. So it's always a compromise between safety and freedom. Which side of the scale do you want to lean more on?" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unfortunately, we look up to the politicians to protect us and we give them the power to do so. The more we rely on them to protect us, the more power they get. And we can't guarantee that this power will be used only for good and not for oppressing people. So it's always a compromise between safety and freedom. Which side of the scale do you want to lean more on? Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. " I agree 👍 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. " Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal." You can not use any force against a police constable, no matter what they do. Nice little dig in the ribs while they search you illegally. Can you give them a dig back? Not legally. And unless you have video evidence complaining is pointless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal. You can not use any force against a police constable, no matter what they do. Nice little dig in the ribs while they search you illegally. Can you give them a dig back? Not legally. And unless you have video evidence complaining is pointless. " When we're you last searched and how was the search justified? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Privacy and consent are actual things inscribed into the human story, and are worth protecting at all costs. " . Not blindly no. Because when you protect privacy at all costs, you create a fertile ground for criminality to flourish, unnoticed and unchecked. . In essence, you give opportunity for some to "fly under the radar". . Yes I am aware of an old Benjamin Franklin quote "“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” . Unfortunately the quote is regularly misunderstood and misapplied in the modern era in debates about surveillance, security policy, or civil liberties — especially when governments expand powers in the name of "national security." In these cases, people often misquote or flatten the original meaning, making it a sort of blanket objection to any trade-off between rights and security. The correct context of the quotes was its original intent. It referred to a dispute between the colonial legislature and the Pennsylvania proprietors over the Assembly’s right to tax landowners (the proprietors) to fund frontier defence during war. So, "liberty" in this case referred to self-governance, and "safety" referred to military protection. . It gets wielded like a trump card, as if any compromise on civil liberties automatically deserves condemnation. . It implies that liberty and safety are mutually exclusive, or that any trade-off is morally wrong, which is not always the case. . That phrase is a false dichotomy — the idea that we must choose between either total liberty or total safety, with no nuanced in-between. . Personally, I'm for nuance and deliberation. Not hasty decisions, but effective ones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal. You can not use any force against a police constable, no matter what they do. Nice little dig in the ribs while they search you illegally. Can you give them a dig back? Not legally. And unless you have video evidence complaining is pointless. " Why would anyone want to use force against a police officer ? In almost 60 years I've never been searched by a police officer,most likely because if never put myself in a position that it would happen and if for some reason it did Id just cooperate knowing I've nothing to hide . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal. You can not use any force against a police constable, no matter what they do. Nice little dig in the ribs while they search you illegally. Can you give them a dig back? Not legally. And unless you have video evidence complaining is pointless. " You appear to be clutching at straws as your post about not being allowed to use reasonable force was rubbish | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell me how you manage and measure a wildly numerous population, without surveillance in one form or another ? . How you identify and assess threats and risks ? If you don’t measure, you cannot manage, and thus you can only be “reactive”. That’s too late for the innocents who lose loved ones in a terrorist attack. Then the questions will be, “Why did no one know about this ? Why was no action taken ?” . Laws may exist to deter (though that’s debatable to a high degree). Prisons and sentencing exist to mop up after the criminal deed. Surveillance then and pre-emptive action is the first line of defence, because without it you are relying on an individual’s sense of right and wrong, and the law of the land. Things which mean nothing to some. I’m a libertarian, so the rights of the individual are of paramount importance to me. But that ends when those rights infringe on others, especially when they could cause harm. . Unlike some libertarian’s, I do value surveillance of the individual where appropriate. There needs to be an auditable reason for that surveillance, so someone can be held to account and that it was not frivolous. That’s good governance. . But I agree that oversight needs guard-rails and should be centred on law enforcement and prevention. " Gold star candidate for kier, and the Nasty kahn sheeple crowd | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To answer the questions asked of me…. Members of the PINAC movement are subject to illegal searches on an almost daily basis and the video evidence of this is all over social media, especially YouTube. Try searching instead of burying your head in the sand and just assuming you’re right. The evidence of successful civil claims are also there as well as the professional standards decisions saying the officers involved did nothing wrong. The police always settle out of court without admitting liability. This blind faith that some people seem to hold that all police act within the law at all times is very strange. Why would I want to hit a copper? I wouldn’t, except in self defence, but it’s illegal. The copper can assault me perfectly legally tho. Surely a better question is why should a copper be allowed to hit members of the public? You have no right of self defence against any emergency worker, but it’s only the police that attack the public. Have you ever tried to report a copper to the police? Coppers will stand by watching other coppers break the law and do nothing. “I didn’t see anything” is their favourite, closely followed by “I don’t remember that” even tho it happened 10 seconds ago. " How often have you been assaulted by a police officer ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To answer the questions asked of me…. Members of the PINAC movement are subject to illegal searches on an almost daily basis and the video evidence of this is all over social media, especially YouTube. Try searching instead of burying your head in the sand and just assuming you’re right. The evidence of successful civil claims are also there as well as the professional standards decisions saying the officers involved did nothing wrong. The police always settle out of court without admitting liability. This blind faith that some people seem to hold that all police act within the law at all times is very strange. Why would I want to hit a copper? I wouldn’t, except in self defence, but it’s illegal. The copper can assault me perfectly legally tho. Surely a better question is why should a copper be allowed to hit members of the public? You have no right of self defence against any emergency worker, but it’s only the police that attack the public. Have you ever tried to report a copper to the police? Coppers will stand by watching other coppers break the law and do nothing. “I didn’t see anything” is their favourite, closely followed by “I don’t remember that” even tho it happened 10 seconds ago. " From what I've seen PINAC are police time wasters trying to provoke and video a response for YouTube clicks and ££. It's small wonder the police treat them with contempt - they have better things to be doing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unfortunately, we look up to the politicians to protect us and we give them the power to do so. The more we rely on them to protect us, the more power they get. And we can't guarantee that this power will be used only for good and not for oppressing people. So it's always a compromise between safety and freedom. Which side of the scale do you want to lean more on? Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. " "Police attacking us?" When does that happen? Our Police use probably the lightest touch policing in the world. A few weeks back I witnessed Italian police handling a seemingly harmless street vagrant. They were so heavy handed it was unbelievable. Same in Germany, France, US. Remember the police often have only seconds to decide their actions that protects themselves, the general public, and often the perpetrator. It's easy to be critical with hindsight sat on the sofa. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unfortunately, we look up to the politicians to protect us and we give them the power to do so. The more we rely on them to protect us, the more power they get. And we can't guarantee that this power will be used only for good and not for oppressing people. So it's always a compromise between safety and freedom. Which side of the scale do you want to lean more on? Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. "Police attacking us?" When does that happen? Our Police use probably the lightest touch policing in the world. A few weeks back I witnessed Italian police handling a seemingly harmless street vagrant. They were so heavy handed it was unbelievable. Same in Germany, France, US. Remember the police often have only seconds to decide their actions that protects themselves, the general public, and often the perpetrator. It's easy to be critical with hindsight sat on the sofa." Watch the independent journalist video footage of the Epping protests. The police insight the peaceful protest by bringing the counter protesters just yards away from them, then force the protesters to move while allowing the counter protesters to advance towards them. Anyone who exercises their legal right to stand their ground is assaulted. Take your rose coloured glasses off and see the real world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unfortunately, we look up to the politicians to protect us and we give them the power to do so. The more we rely on them to protect us, the more power they get. And we can't guarantee that this power will be used only for good and not for oppressing people. So it's always a compromise between safety and freedom. Which side of the scale do you want to lean more on? Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. "Police attacking us?" When does that happen? Our Police use probably the lightest touch policing in the world. A few weeks back I witnessed Italian police handling a seemingly harmless street vagrant. They were so heavy handed it was unbelievable. Same in Germany, France, US. Remember the police often have only seconds to decide their actions that protects themselves, the general public, and often the perpetrator. It's easy to be critical with hindsight sat on the sofa. Watch the independent journalist video footage of the Epping protests. The police insight the peaceful protest by bringing the counter protesters just yards away from them, then force the protesters to move while allowing the counter protesters to advance towards them. Anyone who exercises their legal right to stand their ground is assaulted. Take your rose coloured glasses off and see the real world. " The police are a thin red line standing between two hostile and potentially violent groups. Do they always get their tactics spot on? Probably not, but more often than not the police come away from these encounters with more injuries than the protesters. As for rose tinted spectacles consider this yourself : "we sleep soundly in our beds only because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm". Sweet dreams    | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This blind faith that some people seem to hold that all police act within the law at all times is very strange. Have you ever tried to report a copper to the police? Coppers will stand by watching other coppers break the law and do nothing. “I didn’t see anything” is their favourite, closely followed by “I don’t remember that” even tho it happened 10 seconds ago. From what I've seen PINAC are police time wasters trying to provoke and video a response for YouTube clicks and ££. It's small wonder the police treat them with contempt - they have better things to be doing." The job of the police is to prevent crime and investigate reports of it. It’s not their job to use their powers illegally just because someone is using a camera or because they don’t answer their questions. Even under arrest you have the right to remain silent. You don’t have to identify yourself, you don’t have to answer police questions and you certainly don’t have to give an account as to why you are in a public place doing a legal activity. I’ll agree that some channels wind the police up to trigger a response, but in every single video the police go to the photographer and question them. The photographer never initiates any engagement. The directives from the national police chiefs council is to ignore them and that filming the police or a police station is not sufficient grounds to use section 43 of the terrorism act. So using it to perform a search without further grounds is illegal. Yet they do it all the time and their colleagues just stand by and watch. Their ego and their power trip is what causes poor interactions, just because the photographer didn’t roll over and show ID when demanded of them, despite no lawful reason to do so. Wayne Cousins used his “police powers” and look how that turned out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This blind faith that some people seem to hold that all police act within the law at all times is very strange. Have you ever tried to report a copper to the police? Coppers will stand by watching other coppers break the law and do nothing. “I didn’t see anything” is their favourite, closely followed by “I don’t remember that” even tho it happened 10 seconds ago. From what I've seen PINAC are police time wasters trying to provoke and video a response for YouTube clicks and ££. It's small wonder the police treat them with contempt - they have better things to be doing. The job of the police is to prevent crime and investigate reports of it. It’s not their job to use their powers illegally just because someone is using a camera or because they don’t answer their questions. Even under arrest you have the right to remain silent. You don’t have to identify yourself, you don’t have to answer police questions and you certainly don’t have to give an account as to why you are in a public place doing a legal activity. I’ll agree that some channels wind the police up to trigger a response, but in every single video the police go to the photographer and question them. The photographer never initiates any engagement. The directives from the national police chiefs council is to ignore them and that filming the police or a police station is not sufficient grounds to use section 43 of the terrorism act. So using it to perform a search without further grounds is illegal. Yet they do it all the time and their colleagues just stand by and watch. Their ego and their power trip is what causes poor interactions, just because the photographer didn’t roll over and show ID when demanded of them, despite no lawful reason to do so. Wayne Cousins used his “police powers” and look how that turned out. " Come off it, when the police are attending an incident they have no idea what they are walking into, nor what might happen. The last thing they want is some barrack-room lawyer shoving a camera in their face. It just inflames an already tense situation. Do they sometimes overstep the mark? Of course, but what occupation gets it right all the time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having watched Britian go from one of the top three countries in the world that were celebrated for their values on free speech and freedom of movement without hindrance to being downgraded to the 40th is outstanding. Facial recognition is being employed in every town and city the length and breadth of Britian. Our email, our social media accounts, our private messages. Our bank accounts and passports are being monitored every moment. Digital ID will be pushed through parliament and when looking at China, we all know how that goes. And the police and judicial system are pushing the government's agenda with complete disregard for common law. So my question is, do we accept and comply or resist and defy? I'm all for the latter. " How old are you? And what century was this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you people leave your homes? OAP or otherwise!! Walk around your area, city and towns. Experience the varied food from different cultures! Enjoy talking to them about they're history, most will actually be British and continuing they're tradition from their parents or grandparents. You're all so online you think this fear is real " People go around, talk to people and know things. Hence they aren't blindly going to simp for politicians. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But life goes on. Even in London and Cardiff where we have a large proportion of people who you deem frightening!!! And guess what? Life is easy, crime is actually down!! " Whom did I deem frightening? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegals!!!" What does that have to with this topic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal. You can not use any force against a police constable, no matter what they do. Nice little dig in the ribs while they search you illegally. Can you give them a dig back? Not legally. And unless you have video evidence complaining is pointless. Why would anyone want to use force against a police officer ? In almost 60 years I've never been searched by a police officer,most likely because if never put myself in a position that it would happen and if for some reason it did Id just cooperate knowing I've nothing to hide ." Good luck with that. You'll be stitched up like a kipper. Say nowt and get a brief. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
