Murdoch shaving foam attack guy gets 6 weeks in jail

Biohazard said:
Yes in my opinion, and I don't think I'm alone on that.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it seems a great many people who dislike Murdoch and are on the left of the political spectrum seem to agree with you. I am sure however that none of that is at all relevant. :D

Biohazard said:
Did anyone else in the committee room feel the need to assault the man? People were up before she was, and in place (between the victim and the attacker) before she was. None of them felt compelled to lower themself to assaulting someone, so why did she?
Click to expand...

The whole thing was over in a second or two and she had a particular attachment to the man. From a legal point of view as long as she honestly believed he was in danger then her actions can be classed as self defence.

Biohazard said:
The points you raise are all valid yet you know I cannot answer them, nor can you, but this doesn't dectract from the fact that this was not in defence of someone else in the legal sense the threat was over and had been mitigated.

Walking across and hitting someone because of what they might have done in terms of the substance isn't self defence, this is plain silly, it's assault. Retaliation, anger what ever you want to put it down to.
Click to expand...

As long as she reasonably believed there was still a danger then it can be self defence. Considering the time frames involved it is not unreasonable to think that she could feel that way.

Biohazard said:
Had been assaulted, not 'was being' because the pie had been shoved on his face and he had been pulled away by this point.

Personally, of course. Heat of the moment, anger dismay love and concern. What's getting my goat is people demonising him and turning her into a saint.. on a level of reading this all off a black and white page they both committed assault.
Click to expand...

Well no, because she could possibly fall under the reasonable force section of self defence and he cannot.
 
If the 80 year old wasn't Rupert Murdoch, there would be universal outrage.

The fact it is him seems to invoke people into thinking that UK law should be swept away. Love him or hate him, he is an old man who was assaulted.

The fella could always not have tried to attack him in the first place.
 
Biohazard said:
She didn't act in self defence.
Click to expand...


ok.

So go get her convicted, you'd got it all ontape you'll have no problem gogogo.


on a level of reading this all off a black and white page they both committed assault.
Click to expand...

Actually in pure black and white he committed assault, she is innocent.

After all bio innocent until proven guilty, he was convicted she wasn't.
 
Tefal said:
ok.

So go get her convicted, you'd got it all ontape you'll have no problem gogogo.




Actually in pure black and white he committed assault, she is innocent.

After all bio innocent until proven guilty, he was convicted she wasn't.
Click to expand...

says a lot about the law doesnt it.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
If the 80 year old wasn't Rupert Murdoch, there would be universal outrage.

The fact it is him seems to invoke people into thinking that UK law should be swept away. Love him or hate him, he is an old man who was assaulted.

The fella could always not have tried to attack him in the first place.
Click to expand...

Who has said sweep away the law? I don't think I've seen anyone say that, merely that the term given was motivated politically. I'm not sure it was personally but it was weighted for something, maybe along the lines of what the other Von said above.

I agree that the guy shouldn't have done it, but I don't think you'll ever get universal outrage with something so trivial in the wider world. Assaulting old people isn't a joke, but it was hardly the gravest thing to cross our news chanels was it?

No one batted an eye lid when Prescott got egged or when Baroness warsi was racially attacked or what not, so I think you are setting your expectations a little high in that regard.

I have one question though, would you accept his accusation of being a victim of assault upon his detention if he so voiced it had you been in attendance?
 
Tefal said:
ok.

So go get her convicted, you'd got it all ontape you'll have no problem gogogo.
Click to expand...

Hmmm I think I'll pass thanks I'm not that bothered.


Tefal said:
Actually in pure black and white he committed assault, she is innocent.

After all bio innocent until proven guilty, he was convicted she wasn't.
Click to expand...

Well, as you say yourself it's all on tape. Unless you are saying she didn't strike him? ;)
 
what is this daily mail you talk about. i watch rt every day 6 am sharp. if thats what your getting at. i watch it right afer i watch the bbc and itv news.

its like watchign schoolgirls telling on each other tbh.
 
Biohazard said:
I have one question though, would you accept his accusation of being a victim of assault upon his detention if he so voiced it had you been in attendance?
Click to expand...

The man who pied Murdoch ? No. I don't believe he was assaulted, certainly what I saw of it anyway.

That said, if he made the accusation then I would have to look into it.
 
This pie throwing guy should get 10 years in prison in book. Mr Murdoch shouldn't be assaulted at a hearing.

If the courts did nothing to these fools where would it stop? Stabbing someone would get you a month if you let off these fools?
 
Von Smallhausen said:
If the 80 year old wasn't Rupert Murdoch, there would be universal outrage.

The fact it is him seems to invoke people into thinking that UK law should be swept away. Love him or hate him, he is an old man who was assaulted.

The fella could always not have tried to attack him in the first place.
Click to expand...

The reality would more likely be that if the 80 year old man wasn't Rupert Murdoch then we wouldn't even have heard about it. Hell, if it was half of the 80 year old men i know they would have laughed it off and that would have been that.
 
RDM said:
Indeed, it seems a great many people who dislike Murdoch and are on the left of the political spectrum seem to agree with you. I am sure however that none of that is at all relevant. :D
Click to expand...

Well come on, you may as well spit it out. I was accused of 'politics of envy' last week without any justification, so why not spill out your own ill formed prejudices while you are at it.

Quite the opposite, I like his decaying and poisoning effect on UK politics. He should be one of my heros, I also buy some of his papers for pleasure and work. I have concerns about monopolies, but not him it could be anyone else in his position and would be in his eventual departure.

RDM said:
The whole thing was over in a second or two and she had a particular attachment to the man. From a legal point of view as long as she honestly believed he was in danger then her actions can be classed as self defence.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you. But I think that's already obvious.





RDM said:
As long as she reasonably believed there was still a danger then it can be self defence. Considering the time frames involved it is not unreasonable to think that she could feel that way.
Click to expand...

I don't think there was a danger with so many men around before she got near them and police in the room, it would appear to be partly vindictive and even reactionary. She could have thought a million and one things, but it doesn't matter we don't know. Technically he assaulted Murdoch and she then assaulted the assailant. I don't think she can act in self defence of him there in that situation, by the time she struct her blows. Don't get me wrong, I gave a wry smile when I saw it. But regardless, she didn't have to do it she shouldn't really have done it and I don't accept it was paramount to the situation that she did strike him.



RDM said:
...and he cannot.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously.
 
Biohazard said:
Well come on, you may as well spit it out. I was accused of 'politics of envy' last week without any justification, so why not spill out your own ill formed prejudices while you are at it.

Quite the opposite, I like his decaying and poisoning effect on UK politics. He should be one of my heros, I also buy some of his papers for pleasure and work. I have concerns about monopolies, but not him it could be anyone else in his position and would be in his eventual departure.
Click to expand...

Please note the rather obvious smiley and the fact that it was after your post about only the right wing members of the forum defending it. Or are they not ill-formed prejudices when you are spilling them? :p


Biohazard said:
I have to disagree with you. But I think that's already obvious.
Click to expand...

I am just going on the CPS guidance to be honest. There is enough leeway in the self defence laws that what she did could quite easily fall under them. Not to mention the fact that she wasn't charged with anything so it seems even numpty with foam pie didn't consider it assault.

Biohazard said:
Technically he assaulted Murdoch and she then assaulted the assailant.
Click to expand...

The whole point is though that if she did have reasonable grounds to believe he was still a threat she didn't assault the assailant as that is what the self defence laws allow. It was pretty much split second stuff after all.

Biohazard said:
Well, obviously.
Click to expand...

Which is why the two cases are different and treated differently. Obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom