Extinction Rebellion - Are They Terrorists Yet?

[Vanden Saab]

NoNeed said:

When the protesters break the law, in this case, a serious breach of the peace the public have a right to act and restrain that person or persons, if they decide to fight that was their choice, the crowd just obliged.

Perfectly with in their rights to make a citizens arrest. The situation covered every point as far as I can see...

Any person can arrest a person who is in the act of committing an indictable offence (tick)
Anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing such an offence, (tick)
if it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead (tick)

and it is necessary to arrest the person for one of the below reasons,To prevent the person in question,
causing physical injury to himself or any other person;(tick)
suffering physical injury; (tick)
causing loss of or damage to property; (tick)
making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.(tick)

It seems the crowd were well with in their rights...

[jonmiles]

Agammemnon said:

jonmiles said:

Agammemnon said:

jonmiles said:

He's made a fair point - Everyone also has the right to protest which sometimes means blocking streets and impeding people going about their business I'm afraid.

So if I don't like what you/he say & wish to protest about it you'd consider it acceptable for me to impede you going about your daily life? What if I do the same with your wife, kids, parents, etc? Do you think I have the right to do that? Do you think it's acceptable behaviour? I don't.

Do you think beating up people as part of a group is acceptable behaviour?

It might be acceptable if they struck the first blow after deliberately antagonising such a group.

I've answered your question. Please do me the courtesy of answering mine.

Nobody has the right to assault anybody and the bloke standing on the train kicked out at one man trying to drag him off. If there was a beef it was between the two of them at that point. Everybody else had no right to join in as they hadn't been touched.

Do you agree?

[turbobloke]

jonmiles said:

Nobody has the right to assault anybody <snip>
Do you agree?

No, disagree, there is nothing wrong with assaulting somebody when based on what's happening you are under threat of assault yourself, that's self-defence - you don't have to wait to be clobbered.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence...

[jonmiles]

Vanden Saab said:

NoNeed said:

When the protesters break the law, in this case, a serious breach of the peace the public have a right to act and restrain that person or persons, if they decide to fight that was their choice, the crowd just obliged.

Perfectly with in their rights to make a citizens arrest. The situation covered every point as far as I can see...

Any person can arrest a person who is in the act of committing an indictable offence (tick)
Anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing such an offence, (tick)
if it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead (tick)

and it is necessary to arrest the person for one of the below reasons,To prevent the person in question,
causing physical injury to himself or any other person;(tick)
suffering physical injury; (tick)
causing loss of or damage to property; (tick)
making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.(tick)

It seems the crowd were well with in their rights...

Rubbish. No crowd is within it's rights to give somebody a kicking. Restraint yes.

Please quote the law on the definition of restraint in a citizens arrest and show me where it says that it is reasonable restraint for somebody who is already on the floor to be kicked by many people.

[turbobloke]

jonmiles said:

Vanden Saab said:

NoNeed said:

When the protesters break the law, in this case, a serious breach of the peace the public have a right to act and restrain that person or persons, if they decide to fight that was their choice, the crowd just obliged.

Perfectly with in their rights to make a citizens arrest. The situation covered every point as far as I can see...

Any person can arrest a person who is in the act of committing an indictable offence (tick)
Anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing such an offence, (tick)
if it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead (tick)

and it is necessary to arrest the person for one of the below reasons,To prevent the person in question,
causing physical injury to himself or any other person;(tick)
suffering physical injury; (tick)
causing loss of or damage to property; (tick)
making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.(tick)

It seems the crowd were well with in their rights...

Rubbish. No crowd is within it's rights to give somebody a kicking. Restraint yes.

More than restraint, if necessary, e.g. a potential assailant has just used violence.

[jonmiles]

turbobloke said:

More than restraint, if necessary, e.g. a potential assailant has just used violence.

Can you quote the regulation on that please.

[turbobloke]

jonmiles said:

turbobloke said:

More than restraint, if necessary, e.g. a potential assailant has just used violence.

Can you quote the regulation on that please.

The self defence right is in common law

See also Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders"

Seeing a person kick a commuter in the head (criminal act) is sufficient for Section 3 to apply.

Both according to CPS not me as IANAL.

[Gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

jonmiles said:

turbobloke said:

More than restraint, if necessary, e.g. a potential assailant has just used violence.

Can you quote the regulation on that please.

The self defence right is in common law

See also Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders"

Seeing a person kick a commuter in the head (criminal act) is sufficient for Section 3 to apply.

Both according to CPS not me as IANAL.

He was on the floor Where’s the “prevention of crime” element in that requiring a mob to kick him and not, at the very most, hold him for arrest.

You’re waffle is ridiculous and just shows your venom towards climate activists.

[NoNeed]

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

jonmiles said:

turbobloke said:

More than restraint, if necessary, e.g. a potential assailant has just used violence.

Can you quote the regulation on that please.

The self defence right is in common law

See also Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders"

Seeing a person kick a commuter in the head (criminal act) is sufficient for Section 3 to apply.

Both according to CPS not me as IANAL.

He was on the floor Where’s the “prevention of crime” element in that requiring a mob to kick him and not, at the very most, hold him for arrest.

You’re waffle is ridiculous and just shows your venom towards climate activists.

Did they kick him? I saw the crown split very quickly, maybe he was kicking them

[turbobloke]

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

jonmiles said:

turbobloke said:

More than restraint, if necessary, e.g. a potential assailant has just used violence.

Can you quote the regulation on that please.

The self defence right is in common law

See also Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders"

Seeing a person kick a commuter in the head (criminal act) is sufficient for Section 3 to apply.

Both according to CPS not me as IANAL.

He was on the floor Where’s the “prevention of crime” element in that requiring a mob to kick him and not, at the very most, hold him for arrest.

You’re waffle is ridiculous and just shows your venom towards climate activists.

If you'd looked and read through the link I posted earlier you'd see it's not my waffle it's guidance from the CPS website; it's them you should be having a pointless pop at. Your cherry pick is showing - the CPS advice applies when preventing crime or "assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders" and given the two extremists were arrested (along with six more elsewhere) it worked.

That mention of venom was funny as well as ironic, given how desperate you are to defend the indefensible if it involves myths about the sky falling in. What was that all about, with "you're waffle" ^ half-term syndrome strikes again.

[WinstonWolf]

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

jonmiles said:

turbobloke said:

More than restraint, if necessary, e.g. a potential assailant has just used violence.

Can you quote the regulation on that please.

The self defence right is in common law

See also Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders"

Seeing a person kick a commuter in the head (criminal act) is sufficient for Section 3 to apply.

Both according to CPS not me as IANAL.

He was on the floor Where’s the “prevention of crime” element in that requiring a mob to kick him and not, at the very most, hold him for arrest.

You’re waffle is ridiculous and just shows your venom towards climate activists.

His kicking has probably stopped a great many future crimes from being committed, ergo it was entirely justified and in the public interest.

[Digga]

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

jonmiles said:

turbobloke said:

More than restraint, if necessary, e.g. a potential assailant has just used violence.

Can you quote the regulation on that please.

The self defence right is in common law

See also Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders"

Seeing a person kick a commuter in the head (criminal act) is sufficient for Section 3 to apply.

Both according to CPS not me as IANAL.

He was on the floor Where’s the “prevention of crime” element in that requiring a mob to kick him and not, at the very most, hold him for arrest.

You’re waffle is ridiculous and just shows your venom towards climate activists.

A person can be violent, disorderly, at risk of causing further nuisance and resisting arrest on the ground.

[Agammemnon]

jonmiles said:

Nobody has the right to assault anybody and the bloke standing on the train kicked out at one man trying to drag him off. If there was a beef it was between the two of them at that point. Everybody else had no right to join in as they hadn't been touched.

Do you agree?

Protestor had inconvenienced them. When one of them tried to intervene he was kicked. The rest might reasonably presume the guy was violent based on the the very simple fact that he'd used violence. They therefore justified it in their minds that he needed force used to prevent further problems.

In short, he got the trouble he went looking for. The 'beef' that you mentioned was between the protestors & all those that they had interfered with. As someone else put it, if you antagonise the dog you shouldn't be surprised when you get bitten.

[anonymous-user]

jonmiles said:

Nobody has the right to assault anybody...

Make your mind up. You said it was "fair enough" if your "granny had been molested". Just admit that your moral posturing is flexible depending on the 'victim' and move on.

[Randy Winkman]

WinstonWolf said:

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

jonmiles said:

turbobloke said:

More than restraint, if necessary, e.g. a potential assailant has just used violence.

Can you quote the regulation on that please.

The self defence right is in common law

See also Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders"

Seeing a person kick a commuter in the head (criminal act) is sufficient for Section 3 to apply.

Both according to CPS not me as IANAL.

He was on the floor Where’s the “prevention of crime” element in that requiring a mob to kick him and not, at the very most, hold him for arrest.

You’re waffle is ridiculous and just shows your venom towards climate activists.

His kicking has probably stopped a great many future crimes from being committed, ergo it was entirely justified and in the public interest.

Do you think he'll give up his activism then? Is that how it works?

[NoNeed]

Randy Winkman said:

WinstonWolf said:

Gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

jonmiles said:

turbobloke said:

More than restraint, if necessary, e.g. a potential assailant has just used violence.

Can you quote the regulation on that please.

The self defence right is in common law

See also Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders"

Seeing a person kick a commuter in the head (criminal act) is sufficient for Section 3 to apply.

Both according to CPS not me as IANAL.

He was on the floor Where’s the “prevention of crime” element in that requiring a mob to kick him and not, at the very most, hold him for arrest.

You’re waffle is ridiculous and just shows your venom towards climate activists.

His kicking has probably stopped a great many future crimes from being committed, ergo it was entirely justified and in the public interest.

Do you think he'll give up his activism then? Is that how it works?

No, he will have to protest within the law, many many other groups manage to do that, it is not hard.

[anonymous-user]

Randy Winkman said:

Do you think he'll give up his activism then? Is that how it works?

It seems unlikely that someone who is thick enough to target electric public transport in the name of environmentalism or better yet attack a crowd in Canning Town in the name of anarchy, would be bright enough to take a step back and evaluate his 'activism'. However I suspect that what passes for leadership of this group have had their bubble burst somewhat and now realise the public at large do not support them, which certainly will change their MO to one which at least makes some vague environmental sense. To their credit XR leadership came as close to admitting they got it wrong as a group like that ever will.

[Kawasicki]

fblm said:

Randy Winkman said:

Do you think he'll give up his activism then? Is that how it works?

It seems unlikely that someone who is thick enough to target electric public transport in the name of environmentalism or better yet attack a crowd in Canning Town in the name of anarchy, would be bright enough to take a step back and evaluate his 'activism'. However I suspect that what passes for leadership of this group have had their bubble burst somewhat and now realise the public at large do not support them, which certainly will change their MO to one which at least makes some vague environmental sense. To their credit XR leadership came as close to admitting they got it wrong as a group like that ever will.

Why not target an electric vehicle? They are trying to take down the system...and mass public transport enables the system...whether it is electric powered or something else.

[Langweilig]

It seems they're aiming for a Christmas Number One.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7672403/E...

[turbobloke]

Langweilig said:

It seems they're aiming for a Christmas Number One.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7672403/E...

But has it got the X-Factor? Simon will be on the c(h)ase.