Expanded ULEZ

[motorbiking]

Unless one of the political parties with a chance of power or losing power sees the possible vote winner of not doing it. At the end of the day it's not about pollution or road safety. It's an excuse to tax people for driving cars.

 

[denso13]

Next bit. (hint: read s5(3))

I already mentioned "honestly believed". Do you think he honestly believed,

"The person believed that they had the consent of the other to damage the property in question, or
The defendant caused the damage or destruction in self-defence and with reasonable force, or
If the damage was caused while protecting the property in question, the means taken to protect that property were not unreasonable, and the person honestly believed it needed protecting."

 

[motorbiking]

It's entirely subjective and there is no requirement for it be rational. People believe all sorts of things. Its not about your belief, but you view of his honestly held belief. It's why protestors get away with damaging things, even though they and their beliefs are nuts.

 

[denso13]

but you view of his honestly held belief

So again, did he honestly believe,

he had permission, or he was doing it in self defence, or he was protecting property?

 

[motorbiking]

How do we know until he tells us? I'm not sure what you are getting at?

 

[denso13]

I'm not sure what you are getting at?

I'm saying that he can't claim nonsense for the sake of it. Otherwise there would never be any criminal damage prosecutions.

 

[johnny2007]

With the first 3 weeks of ulez income the emperor took a bunch of his employees to new york for a well deserved vacation.
And WE pay for it!

 

[noseall]

I'm not sure what you are getting at?

He's probably getting at you gymnastically contorting your morals, into actually believing that what the ULEZ terrorists are doing is OK with you, whilst simultaneously erupting with rage at BLM or JustStopOil protesters, whilst your hypocrisy meter is exploding in your pale-male-stale underpants.. The irony alarm alone is deafening.

Nowt worse that a failed wannabee solicitor. Go quote your bupkes legal garbage to some bored RWR. Not impressed with your squirming, sorry.

 

[motorbiking]

So far there have been 1000 cameras destroyed, half a dozen vans and only 2 arrests, 1 dropped.

Maybe plod don’t care.

 

[motorbiking]

I'm saying that he can't claim nonsense for the sake of it. Otherwise there would never be any criminal damage prosecutions.

Some might say to claim that throwing public property in the dock and claiming it was preventing a crime, is nonsense. But if that is their honest belief and a jury believes them, then they aren’t guilty.

There are clear parallels.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Domestic terrorism. . @noseall legal knowledge knows no limits.

I would suggest he reads sec 5. If the perpetrator held an honest belief, even if that belief was wrong, that he was defending the rights of the people and had authority to act as he did. He has a defence to criminal damage even if, that belief is based on nothing other than the legal advice of a builder who has no clue about law.

That is not to say he isn’t liable for the costs.

Authority to act as he did ?

Hmmm

 

[motorbiking]

More peaceful protesting..

ULEZ activist in dinosaur suit uses tipper truck to block camera van

The baffling footage is the latest protest against the vans, which use number plate recognition cameras to catch and fine non-compliant vehicles driving in London's ULEZ .

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[motorbiking]

Authority to act as he did ?

Hmmm

"If the perpetrator held an honest belief, even if that belief was wrong". this is key. The origin of this defence was to protect people who may cause damage for a greater cause. e.g. someone pushes a burning car away from other vehicles and dents it in the process or even chooses to damage one of the vehicles he is trying to protect. However, case law has interpreted it in a much broader way.

 

[Brigadier]

So far there have been 1000 cameras destroyed, half a dozen vans and only 2 arrests, 1 dropped.

Maybe plod don’t care.

There's rude and nasty posts and tweets to investigate; they can't be everywhere

 

[carmanmemoranda]

"If the perpetrator held an honest belief, even if that belief was wrong". this is key. The origin of this defence was to protect people who may cause damage for a greater cause. e.g. someone pushes a burning car away from other vehicles and dents it in the process or even chooses to damage one of the vehicles he is trying to protect. However, case law has interpreted it in a much broader way.

Could you defend him for damage to cameras and/or vans ?