Riots and damage compensation

[Mottie]

Mottie said:
View attachment 351500
No-one has, as of yet, been charged with rioting.

They don’t have to be for it to be classed as a riot, that’s not a requirement.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

They don’t have to be for it to be classed as a riot, that’s not a requirement.

It would be quite remarkable if the participants of a riot were not charged with rioting.
Like a murderer not being charged with murder when a murder has been committed.
Unless there were mitigating circumstances such as mental health, etc.

But a rioter participating in a riot, damaging property and threatening or perpetrating violence must surely be charged with rioting, unless they had similar mitigating circumstances.

Unless none of them are charged with rioting, because it's not considered to be a riot.

I did say, we can agree to disagree.
But I guess that's not your style.

 

[Brigadier]

It would be quite remarkable if the participants of a riot were not charged with rioting

Just because it doesn't fit in with your timescales, doesn't mean it won't happen

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Just because it doesn't fit in with your timescales, doesn't mean it won't happen

I didn't put any timescale into my thinking.
You introduced the timescale concept.

 

[Brigadier]

I didn't put any timescale into my thinking.
You introduced the timescale concept.

Until they've all been charged, the charges have all been made known, and it is shown that no-one has been charged with "rioting" (or however you wish to term it), I remain correct and you, incorrect.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Until they've all been charged, the charges have all been made known, and it is shown that no-one has been charged with "rioting" (or however you wish to term it), I remain correct and you, incorrect.

You are correct about what?

Just because it doesn't fit in with your timescales, doesn't mean it won't happen

You can't be correct about something that hasn't happened.

 

[Brigadier]

You can't be correct about something that hasn't happened.

You got there, eventually

Unless none of them are charged with rioting, because it's not considered to be a riot.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

You got there, eventually

Unless none of them are charged with rioting, because it's not considered to be a riot.

It wasn't a prediction, it was a statement of one thing can't be true if the relevant other is not true.

You can't be correct about something that hasn't happened.

Similarly, you (nor I) can't be incorrect about something that hasn't happened.
I think you've resorted to your habit of talking in obscure riddles again.

 

[Brigadier]

one thing can't be true if the relevant other is not true.

Yet.

 

[Brigadier]

Similarly, you (nor I) can't be incorrect about something that hasn't happened.

Yet.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Yet.

Yet.

Hence my proposal:

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

 

[Brigadier]

Happy to let you have the last word

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Happy to let you have the last word

Very kind.
You can have it if you wish.

 

[motorbiking]

I know.

So you were just posting boll@x then ?

Or do you mean you now know?

 

[denso13]

So you were just posting boll@x then ?

Or do you mean you now know?

The law is clear, do you need a link?