Quote from: Alex on Today at 08:10:11 PMKhan was booed and heckled when the result was announced, still with that smug grin on his face.This made my blood boil
Meanwhile in Bradford, his muslim brothers celebrate another win, I'm sure there were Pakistani flags draped around some of them. God help this country
https://twitter.com/i/status/1786722982011806020
Quote from: JBR on Today at 08:28:56 PMOther cities will follow.10 years go I warned about this & was ridiculed, on the other forum, so to paraphrase Nigel Farage's speech to the EU just after the 16th June 2016.
Our country is becoming - and almost certainly will become - a majority muslim nation in time.
We can all see it coming, and yet for some reason most people are afraid of supporting the people who will do something to stop it.
Quote from: Diasi on Today at 07:17:46 PMThanks Cassandra for expanding on this.Hear hear.
Correct if I'm wrong but my understanding is that you can use force, including lethal force, if an intruder leads you to believe that they are armed even if they turn out not to be, under the CPS rules of not having to wait to be actually attacked.
It must be quite refreshing to now live in a country where you don't have to stand placidly while an intruder attacks you or risk a life sentence if you protect yourself.
Quote from: Cassandra on Today at 03:18:45 PMHe will win by a mile, too many muslims now in London to be countered by the rest. This is why he was installed by Blair, who then imported millions of supporters from Pakistan etc, to ensure his residence until he decides to relinquish it to 'Khan 2'.He will indeed, especially because of the 'proxy postal votes', and we all know how that works.
Additionally the gathering of 'proxy postal votes' at many mosques is a well known activity today, where this sphere of influence is an established social doctrine.
Eventually this profile will convert the whole of the the UK to the paradigm of Islamic Sharia Law. Khan is the prototype Caliph for the UK and eventually Europe.
Quote from: Scrumpy on Today at 11:06:55 AMI wouldn't hesitate to fire a crossbow at anyone who i thought could be threat to my family.. And I bet most parents would feel the same..The bolt comes in red after it's been fired.
I certainly hope that I wouldn't just lay there and hope that they go away..
I would fire ... no time to ask questions.. 'Are you friend or foe' ?.. 'Are you going to hurt me or my family' ?
The questions can come later..
It is they who are up to no good.. not me..
I feel strongly about this topic..
ps. Does the crossbow come in red.. ?
Quote from: Cassandra on Today at 05:29:41 PMI think he comes over well because he only answers 'put up' questions by left leaning media organs. I've never known anyone to rile me more just by the sight of them. Horrible little hook nosed, imported parasite.I'm glad it's just not me who refers to him as hook-nosed in my posts about him.
Hall is a 'One Nation Tory', born from the didactic parents of local council and London Assembly posts. An unsupported nobody, going nowhere.
Quote from: Cassandra on Today at 02:56:32 PMSection 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that:Thanks Cassandra for expanding on this.
"any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing a crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
Reasonable force can be adopted to "prevent a crime".
Also subsection 5, of Section 76 refers to intoxication (another case).
Of course all English Law is subsidiary to the Human Rights Act 1998, article 2 of which states that:
"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."
"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of the Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. In defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. In action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."
To sum up, in the case referred to if you arrive 'tooled up' to support an act of burglary, you would expect in some cases to be repelled by assisted physical restraint and judges would so instruct jurors to contain this fact within their judgement. Arguably a Farmer's shotgun is a physical repellant. However within all judgements is the facet of 'reasonable force'. In this instance is a farmer owning a shotgun for say wildlife protection and pest control, justified to express this instrument as an item of reasonable force in defence of his person and property when confronted with 'armed' intruders? Herein is the argument for breaching the HRA 1998, however I defended on many occasions where farmers were discharged for the utility of a shotgun in an act of self defence. The law needs clarity and in todays 'washy-wokey' clamour for criminal liberty, the plaudits for clearing up legitimate armed response will never be changed.
The ungodly can fully expect that in 'knocking off a farm' they may encounter an armed response as most farmers own shotguns. I have successfully argued that within this act they compel the farmer to resort to shooting in response. Sometimes many intruders target their properties and even if only one is armed the farmer is justified in assuming all invaders are similarly equipped.
Page created in 0.038 seconds with 16 queries.