Boxer blocked in by selfish ****s, gets angry and is charged

Boxer blocked in by selfish ****s, gets angry and is charged

Author
Discussion

Yazar

Original Poster:

1,476 posts

119 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
2 men come to a carpark which is full, so they think it is ok to leave a note saying 'call us if you need to get out' rolleyes Driver of one of the blocked cars (Heavyweight boxer) happens to be coming back at that time who tells them that he is in a hurry and for them to move the car.

They instead "keep walking to the Post office" confused When they return from the post office he is livid, tells them he is late for his appointment and threatens to knock them out, instead of moing their car, they call the old bill. Police turn up, he decides to 'keeps it real' and so end up with community service.

Feel a bit sorry for him, the fact that he didn't actually knock them out there and then shows that it was just 'trash talk' surely? A week earlier had lost his European title too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2880171/I-...


9mm

3,128 posts

209 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Shame he didn't tt them. This crap about "phone this number if you want the car moved" really gets my goat. We used to get the same thing with my mother's driveway only then she was told "you only have to ask and we'll move it".

Thankyou4calling

10,595 posts

172 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
I'm amazed the people didn't move it immediately.

Accept the way he behaved was not on but if a guy like that told me to move, i'd be off fast.

They got off lightly.

RB Will

9,662 posts

239 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
can the wkers that blocked him in then refused to move not be done for inciting the behaviour rather than rewarded with £100 each for being selfish fks.

superkartracer

8,959 posts

221 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Yeah but if you punch people in the face you go to prison and get bummed.

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
What a pair of fking wkers. Why bugger off to the post office?

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
They shouldn't have blocked him in, but his reaction was hardly reasonable or proportionate to the inconvenience.

I was wondering why he didn't receive a caution, as it's a relatively minor offence. Then I read he has previous convictions for like offences...


smegmore

3,091 posts

175 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
he should of done there tyres.

innit.

smile

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
superkartracer said:
Yeah but if you punch people in the face you go to prison and get bummed.
i doubt anyone would be bumming derek chisora in a hurry. in this case he did not punch anyone, so got community service for shouting. what a joke. the two stbags that called the police should have been fined for the inconsiderate parking.

Lost soul

8,712 posts

181 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
superkartracer said:
Yeah but if you punch people in the face you go to prison and get bummed.
In this case he would go to prison and do the bumming

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Yazar said:
2 men come to a carpark which is full, so they think it is ok to leave a note saying 'call us if you need to get out' rolleyes Driver of one of the blocked cars (Heavyweight boxer) happens to be coming back at that time who tells them that he is in a hurry and for them to move the car.

They instead "keep walking to the Post office" confused When they return from the post office he is livid, tells them he is late for his appointment and threatens to knock them out, instead of moing their car, they call the old bill. Police turn up, he decides to 'keeps it real' and so end up with community service.
Erm - it wasn't a public car park, it was the resident's private parking which the boxer had dumped his car in. They came home to find that there was nowhere to park, so parked blocking him in and left a note.

superkartracer

8,959 posts

221 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Lost soul said:
superkartracer said:
Yeah but if you punch people in the face you go to prison and get bummed.
In this case he would go to prison and do the bumming
Unsure about that, he likes to hit little girls, they like that in prison.

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
By blocking him in they committed a criminal offence. By his reaction he committed a criminal offence. They should both have been dealt with.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
By blocking him in they committed a criminal offence. By his reaction he committed a criminal offence. They should both have been dealt with.
Is it a criminal offence to block someone in on your private property? What is the offence?

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
s54 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Preventing the vehicle from moving by any means without lawful authority is an offence. The vehicle being on your property does not give you lawful authority.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
That law isn't intended to be used for obstruction offences, it's for immobilisation and fundamentally aimed at rogue vehicle immobilisers. That's why it requires intention. Leaving a note with contact numbers on so the driver can come back to the vehicle causing the issue suggests an intention not to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle.

If it's criminal, it's Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (unnecessary obstruction). As is pointed out, there may be private / public issues.




Corpulent Tosser

5,459 posts

244 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Could have been easily resolved if they had just moved the car, would never have happed if he hadn't parked in a residents space.

Both parties guilty - but Chisora sounds like a thoroughly nasty bd.

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
That law isn't intended to be used for obstruction offences, it's for immobilisation and fundamentally aimed at rogue vehicle immobilisers. That's why it requires intention. Leaving a note with contact numbers on so the driver can come back to the vehicle causing the issue suggests an intention not to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle.

If it's criminal, it's Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (unnecessary obstruction). As is pointed out, there may be private / public issues.
You're quite right about intent, and the note might show contrary intention. However, when Chisora asked them to move the car, they refused and carried on with what they were doing (going to the Post Office). At that point their intention was clearly to continue immobilising Chisora's car, in the words of Chisora's lawyer, because they didn't like the way they were being spoken to. That is where the note is superseded by their actions.

It sounds like Chisora is a deeply unpleasant person and he deserved what he got, however.


anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
allergictocheese said:
At that point their intention was clearly to continue immobilising Chisora's car, in the words of Chisora's lawyer, because they didn't like the way they were being spoken to. That is where the note is superseded by their actions.
The driver's intent, when parking, was to go to the post office. The driver's intent, when challenged by Chisora, was to go to the post office. The note (which is still very relevant) reinforces the aforementioned.

An indirect consequence of the intent to go to the post office resulted in preventing the vehicle being removed, and a continuation of such, but that doesn't count.

Practically, and we're speaking practically since we were talking about them both being dealt with formally, how would you ever prove the relevant intent for the offence to be made out the circumstances? The circumstances we have simply don't support the offence in question. Primarily because it's not designed for these scenarios.












allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
They were at the car and were made aware by Chisora that he wanted them to move their vehicle. They refused to do so and instead decided to leave him blocked in whist they went about their business. At the point they refused to move their vehicle the intention is patently to keep Chisora from being able to move his and the offence is made out. That they were planning to go to the Post Office before, during or after is neither here nor there, as there is no rule that says there can only be one intention. People often do things for a number of reasons and if any one of them matches the offence here, it is complete.


Edited by allergictocheese on Friday 19th December 12:55