Eh? Where have I been complaining about "civil liberties and life ending because you dare to show your face"?
How about a face and a name to your user name?
- Thread starter Mottie
- Start date
Eh? Where have I been complaining about "civil liberties and life ending because you dare to show your face"?
Sponsored Links
S
sodthisforfun
Million dollar question.
B
Bodd
A lady working at one of the big stations in London was spat at by someone who claimed to have CV back in March. She died last week.
So hopefully the 'spitter' will now be charged with manslaughter, at the least.
For comparison, I think the law is that, if you have HIV/Aids and you have unprotected sex with someone without informing them, you can be prosecuted for grievous bodily harm as a minimum if it is proved that they developed the disease from you. How that could be proved I have no idea.
For comparison, I think the law is that, if you have HIV/Aids and you have unprotected sex with someone without informing them, you can be prosecuted for grievous bodily harm as a minimum if it is proved that they developed the disease from you. How that could be proved I have no idea.
Sponsored Links
Apparently two people were spat at by the same person and they both contracted it.
B
Bodd
It's murder
Surely not.
If I hit you with a brick, intending to frighten or scare you, and you die, surely that's murder.
If I shove you in the street, during an argument, and you fall back and hit your head on the pavement, and die, what's that?
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/colin-payne-mark-bloomfield-trial-17348286
No, because as you say, the intention was to 'frighten or scare'.
Manslaughter.
S
sodthisforfun
Knowing what we know about Covid and death, to intend to cause GBH that leads to death I think can be classed as murder? Tricky ground though.
B
Bodd
The defendant was a martial arts expert who should have known he clearly had the capability to kill someone if he assaulted them.
It clearly shows he was not someone who adhered to the martial art code of using aggression as a last resort and in a tempered manner. The night before he attacked the victim he had put someone into a chokehold that caused them to lose consciousness. Neither of his actions suggests he 'only wanted to scare someone'. He was clearly out to show those around the incidents that he was a hard man and not frightened of anyone. He may not have intended to kill the victim but he was clearly aware that his actions certainly could kill someone. He should have asked for an apology or simply not made such a big deal of the original incident.
In the news report it says, "
Describing the events in the Full Moon he said a drink being held by Mr Bloomfield touched the back of Payne's partner Jenny Harding prompting Payne to get off his stool and walk towards the alleged murder victim.
“He grabs Mark Bloomfield by the throat, forces him backwards over the stool, and just for good measure kicked him in the head while he was on the floor,” These are the words of the prosecuting council.
It also says in the report, "The court heard Mr Bloomfield picked up his bag and left the pub and the defendant followed him "spoiling for a fight" before “delivering two powerful blows in quick succession” which knocked Mr Bloomfield, 54, to the ground.
On Tuesday pathologist Dr Stephen Leadbeatter gave evidence about Mr Bloomfield's injuries, telling the court that scans when he was brought into hospital showed complex fractures to the bones on the right side of the face and skull, a displaced right jaw bone, and “bruising or bleeding to various parts of the brain”. So not exactly a placid sort of guy is he?
In this case I believe the murder conviction was the right one.
I said you were complaining, not what about.
Im not sure who this 'fab four is, but perhaps you can point out where any of those have been complaining about civil liberties.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
