MM wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:56:57 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>> My first thought was that the defendant had (slightly) amended her
>> version of events, shortly before the trial.
>
> She shouldn't even have BEEN a ruddy defendant!! Any scratches the
> scrotes got were entirely their own fault.
CPS probably thought that the magistrates would form a similar view -
once the statement of the defendant made sense. However, when someone
makes a statement that is clearly at odds with the evidence, then the
whole of that statement becomes suspect and worthless. They have to base
decisions on evidence - not wishful thinking.
> Did this "defendant" walk
> up to someone and start scratching them? No! She was remonstrating
> with a bunch of .wits who thought they would teach her a lesson.
> And of course, along comes British "justice" to help them out!
> Completely, totally, idiotic.
You seem to be suggesting earlier that, if she had pushed her into a
load of thorny bushes, the "scrote" only got what she deserved. I would
not disagree with you.
If these people turned up outside a policeman's house and behaved
similarly, what would he do? He can use "necessary force to effect an
arrest" including using pepper sprays, batons, pain holds etc. What can
a private citizen do? Not even turn a hose pipe on them.
I'd like a "Citizen's Riot Act". If people refuse to leave your property
within a reasonable period after you ask them to leave = you have the
right to use whatever means are at your disposal to remove them. If the
law won't allow householders to have reasonable means of defence, they
will have to allow them to use unreasonable ones.
--
Sue
|