religiously aggravated assault
Discussion
SteveScooby said:
IIRC You can't have a racially/religiously aggravated GBH.
He's been charged with religiously aggravated common assault, by beating.
GBH and ABH can be charged as racially/religiously aggravated (see Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.29(1)(a)). It raises the maximum penalty by 2 years to 7 years.He's been charged with religiously aggravated common assault, by beating.
I would suggest Mr. Galloway or others may have been over-egging reports of his injuries, or the press reports of the charges are not brilliant, or the witness evidence is not as damning as it might be, or a combination of factors.
singlecoil said:
Suppose someone thought you were horrible, would it be ok for them to give you a severe beating? In fact, some people (not I, but some people) might think that your comment showed that you were indeed horrible.
I would have thought it was an obvious joke to most, perhaps your love for this hatemonger blinded you to it. ging84 said:
singlecoil said:
Suppose someone thought you were horrible, would it be ok for them to give you a severe beating? In fact, some people (not I, but some people) might think that your comment showed that you were indeed horrible.
I would have thought it was an obvious joke to most, perhaps your love for this hatemonger blinded you to it. People who work violence of other people, no matter what their reason, are absolute scum and should be treated as such.
singlecoil said:
If anything was obvious, it was that it was NOT a joke. Claiming afterwards that it was a joke is a weak get-out. I have no love whatsoever for Galloway, but if I saw you beating him up I would stop you, just as I would stop anyone beating up anyone, were it in my power.
People who work violence of other people, no matter what their reason, are absolute scum and should be treated as such.
Would you include Prince Harry in that? He did an exceptionally good job at inflicting violence from his Apache. Or the blokes at Hereford who might be sent out to impose the most extreme violence to save an innocent persons life?People who work violence of other people, no matter what their reason, are absolute scum and should be treated as such.
I agree with you for the most part. I don't like Galloway but he doesn't deserve a beating. However there are plenty of situations where violence is justified and acceptable.
photosnob said:
singlecoil said:
If anything was obvious, it was that it was NOT a joke. Claiming afterwards that it was a joke is a weak get-out. I have no love whatsoever for Galloway, but if I saw you beating him up I would stop you, just as I would stop anyone beating up anyone, were it in my power.
People who work violence of other people, no matter what their reason, are absolute scum and should be treated as such.
Would you include Prince Harry in that? He did an exceptionally good job at inflicting violence from his Apache. Or the blokes at Hereford who might be sent out to impose the most extreme violence to save an innocent persons life?People who work violence of other people, no matter what their reason, are absolute scum and should be treated as such.
I agree with you for the most part. I don't like Galloway but he doesn't deserve a beating. However there are plenty of situations where violence is justified and acceptable.
richardrsc said:
singlecoil said:
Indeed. The sniggerers would do well to consider where the idea of attacking people they disagree with would lead.
I'm sure George himself will be out to condemn the violence. As he so often does. When it suits him.I agree with the second part of that, but not the first. I don't think you would agree with it either if it happened that somebody thought you deserved beating up too.
singlecoil said:
richardrsc said:
singlecoil said:
Indeed. The sniggerers would do well to consider where the idea of attacking people they disagree with would lead.
I'm sure George himself will be out to condemn the violence. As he so often does. When it suits him.I agree with the second part of that, but not the first. I don't think you would agree with it either if it happened that somebody thought you deserved beating up too.
singlecoil said:
photosnob said:
singlecoil said:
If anything was obvious, it was that it was NOT a joke. Claiming afterwards that it was a joke is a weak get-out. I have no love whatsoever for Galloway, but if I saw you beating him up I would stop you, just as I would stop anyone beating up anyone, were it in my power.
People who work violence of other people, no matter what their reason, are absolute scum and should be treated as such.
Would you include Prince Harry in that? He did an exceptionally good job at inflicting violence from his Apache. Or the blokes at Hereford who might be sent out to impose the most extreme violence to save an innocent persons life?People who work violence of other people, no matter what their reason, are absolute scum and should be treated as such.
I agree with you for the most part. I don't like Galloway but he doesn't deserve a beating. However there are plenty of situations where violence is justified and acceptable.
"I don't like Galloway but he doesn't deserve a beating. However there are plenty of situations where violence is justified and acceptable." Is bang on the money in my opinion.
StottyEvo said:
He's not alone, what you've put is pretty black and white.
But there was a context to what I wrote, and it needed to be read in that context. If every post people made had to be incapable of being misunderstood by anyone reading the post as a stand-alone one, threads would be a lot longer.singlecoil said:
StottyEvo said:
He's not alone, what you've put is pretty black and white.
But there was a context to what I wrote, and it needed to be read in that context. If every post people made had to be incapable of being misunderstood by anyone reading the post as a stand-alone one, threads would be a lot longer.I read the statement in context, the statement still said exactly what it said.
Corpulent Tosser said:
What is sad/disappointing is that people think it amusing that a man has been assaulted by a thug who disagreed with him and what he has to say.
George Galloway should not have been punched and no doubt the full force of law will be brought to bear for the act, remember though that this is the same law that gave Galloway a talking to after he declared part of the country a no go area to Jews.There does seem to be an imbalance in the scales of justice.
voyds9 said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
What is sad/disappointing is that people think it amusing that a man has been assaulted by a thug who disagreed with him and what he has to say.
George Galloway should not have been punched and no doubt the full force of law will be brought to bear for the act, remember though that this is the same law that gave Galloway a talking to after he declared part of the country a no go area to Jews.There does seem to be an imbalance in the scales of justice.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff