Riots and damage compensation

[denso13]

Provided it meets the definition of "riot" as per the act, it' does not exclude civil commotion, political disturbance, or children's party.

Political disturbance could be non violent, therefore they are not riots and not subject to the compensation scheme.

Political disturbances that are not violent are excluded, because they don't meet the definition of a riot. But you won't find that list of exclusions in the act.

 

[denso13]

Riots could include civil commotions.

Civil commotions could include riots.

Are all civil commotions riots? If yes, there is no "could", the phrases are interchangeable.

If they aren't then some are excluded.

 

[Brigadier]

But you won't find that list of exclusions in the act.

I didn't claim they were there.

It concerns what a riot is, not what it isn't.

 

[Brigadier]

Are all civil commotions riots? If yes, there is no "could", the phrases are interchangeable.

If they aren't then some are excluded.

Stop complicating things.

Regardless of anything else a situation might or might not be, the only concern of the. RCA is whether the situation meets the definition of "riot", or not.

 

[denso13]

Stop complicating things.

Regardless of anything else a situation might or might not be, the only concern of the. RCA is whether the situation meets the definition of "riot", or not.

I am honestly not trying to but I think, by the examples I have given, the below is wrong.

it' does not exclude civil commotion, political disturbance, or children's party.

It excludes anything which is not deemed to be a riot.

 

[Brigadier]

I am honestly not trying to but I think, by the examples I have given, the below is wrong.

It excludes anything which is not deemed to be a riot.

You are either being deliberately stupid, or you're trolling.

My full post was

Provided it meets the definition of "riot" as per the act, it' does not exclude civil commotion, political disturbance, or children's party.

Which is what King Andy has already said.

post #133


Provided it meets the definition of "riot" as per the act,


Which is exactly the part of my quote that you chopped out, then said that my post was incorrect because it was absent...........

 

[motorbiking]

Have you actually got to bit where a riot is defined in Law? I've skim read this thread.

Public Order Act 1986

An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide...

www.legislation.gov.uk

Sec 1 Public Order Act - nobody can declassify a riot to avoid compensation if it meets the definition. Not to mention the obvious issue of convicting people for Rioting and arguing there was no Riot.

Definition of a riot : "where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose”

Does there need to be violence for it to be a riot? NO.

Threat of violence and fear of safety + 12 people = Riot

 

[Brigadier]

Have you actually got to bit where a riot is defined in Law?

King Andy did so, pages ago.

 

[motorbiking]

which post?
I can only see references to the riot compensation act?

EDIT: Post 50 found it. screen shot

 

[motorbiking]

Political disturbance could be non violent, therefore they are not riots and not subject to the compensation scheme.

Political disturbances that are not violent are excluded, because they don't meet the definition of a riot. But you won't find that list of exclusions in the act.

I am struggling to understand how a non-violent protest could result in damage? But in any case there only needs to be the threat of violence and a perceived risk to safety and it's a riot.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Sec 1 Public Order Act - nobody can declassify a riot to avoid compensation if it meets the definition. Not to mention the obvious issue of convicting people for Rioting and arguing there was no Riot.

As far as we are aware, no-one has been charged, tried nor sentenced for rioting......yet.

The 2016 Act has not yet been tested.

So until more light is shone on the issue, I suggest we agree to disagree.

 

[Mottie]

As far as we are aware, no-one has been charged, tried nor sentenced for rioting......yet.

The 2016 Act has not yet been tested.

So until more light is shone on the issue, I suggest we agree to disagree.

…there only needs to be the threat of violence and a perceived risk to safety and it's a riot.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Mottie said:

No-one has, as of yet, been charged with rioting.

 

[denso13]

But in any case there only needs to be the threat of violence and a perceived risk to safety and it's a riot.

I know.

 

[Odds]

Since there's been more than just a hint of violence and you'd have to be blind to not perceieve a threat to personal safety, then it's safe to assume the events in recent days can be called a riot. The question is, who could be charged under the Terrorism Act for their actions during the riot?