Hesitating to get involved in this one....but Personally I am not sure there was real risk to anyone's life (or the race) by his jumping in the water. He breached the peace - deserves a punishment - but one that recognises he was making a very ill conceived but non violent political protest, the right to which should be 'protected'.
I think he should have been fined, maybe community service, but jail in my opinion is over the top. We have crammed enough jails without filling them with guardian reading misguided hippies. It really does achieve nowt in cases like that. I defer to you Chris for the criminal law points, that's my non-lawyer view. I Sent from my iPhone On 23 Oct 2012, at 22:35, "Chris Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric, > > Get a grip, rather than patching up the holes in your own argument you chose > to attempt to mock an example I put forward in terms of the risk to life, > bear in mind it was just an example, an example however that does bear weight > in this case. Two boat crews plus support personnel were taking part in a > wholly legal, organised race. The last thing they were expecting was a random > dickhead staging a protest as they approached, the risks to him were many > fold, risk of drowning, risk that a boat could have collided with him, etc. > He was staging a protest against something that bore absolutely no relevance > to the event and which was unknown to the event participants, this makes him > unpredictable in terms of risk assessment to the crews. > > As for your arguement relating to driving to work, well, it would be all to > easy to take the piss and say, try learning to drive properly, but that would > be like taking candy from a baby, so I won't. > By driving you are accepting the risks, what this guy did in the boat race is > the motoring equivalent of jumping out into the road, ie, it poses a risk to > the jumper and the innocent motorist. > > Your statement, in the case of Oldfield is also incorrect, an independent > jury found him guilty, the Judge dealt with he sentence, if as you say the > sentence can be between nothing and life, then as the judge only gave him six > months, surely when compared to life this is very, very lenient, therefore > does it actually need a huge volume of justification? Remember that I ONLY > GAVE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE, if you wish to see the actually pronouncement look > it up. It will be there as any sentence has to be explained in easy to > understand language for the defendant, here you will find the Judges > justification. > > As for your last paragraph I have to concede the arguement, purely because > the statement doesn't make sense. > > I notice you have gone quiet on the Hansard front. Did you find the evidence > or are you still willing to stake an arguement on heresay? > > So then, Eric, put your bollocks on the line, what would you have done. Try > to look at this without any prejudice, weigh up the evidence and tell me what > sentence you would have given? > > > Sent from my iPad > > On 23 Oct 2012, at 21:17, "Eric B" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Chris, >> >> Thanks for clarifying the procedures. In short: I am saying >> politicians are a danger to justice. I was using this as an example. >> It might not be the best example in your opinion but If you want >> better examples there are many of them, have a look around. >> >> The argument: "his put his life in danger and the others etc."is such >> a generic statement and holds hardly any weight in real life terms. >> Its used ALL the frikking time and its become tedious. I put my life >> and others lives in danger every time I drive to work. Same thing. >> According to stats I should be wearing a helmet when I climb a ladder, >> its more dangerous than biking etc. >> >> Its not a great situation when verdicts are handed out using wide >> spreading laws like this and light justifications like that. >> Justice? >> >> Hopefully we can agree that this everyone is allowed to protest in a >> democracy, and should be without risking life in jail. >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Chris Briggs <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Eric, >>> >>> You are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a random number. >>> >>> The CPS can't come up with any random charge as they run the risk of it >>> being kicked out. They are, however, allowed to change it prior to court >>> hearing. The defence can challenge the charge if they think it is >>> disproportionate to the offence. >>> >>> The statement relating to Hansard was a cut and paste effort from a protest >>> blog/website. >>> Have you actually looked through the Hansard record to produce the >>> evidence, hearsay does mot make your statement correct. >>> The fact that Hansard reported that ministers asked the Police Chief to >>> increase the charge is largely irrelevant, as the police have no bearing >>> upon which charge is laid and presented in court as it is handled by an >>> independent organisation and has done since the late 1980s. For this to >>> have more substance and make it believable it would have to be linked to >>> the DPP or at least someone within his organisation. It isn't (in as far as >>> I can see) >>> >>> In this instance, as in 98% of cases, this was first heard in a Magistrates >>> Court, where it was passed 'upstairs' for Trial. >>> It went to Trial because he was pleading Not Guilty and during which twelve >>> of his peers from society, not the Judge, found the evidence against him. >>> The Judge sentenced him accordingly, if as you say the offence could >>> warrant up to Life as a tariff then Oldfield has only just managed to >>> squeeze in at the bottom end. Lucky lad. >>> >>> By protesting as he did he endangered his own life as well as potentially >>> others involved in the race, the participants of which were completely >>> innocent bystanders to the protest as the protest was not against them. He >>> was protesting against spending cuts. How he linked spending cuts and a >>> boat race god only knows. This would have been taken into account when >>> sentencing. >>> >>> As for any elitist stuff you mentioned earlier about Oxbridge you will do >>> well to remember that Oldfield went to the elitist LSE! Ironic eh? >>> >>> Can't work out how his appeal will be for my benefit. >>> >>> On 23 Oct 2012, at 11:06, "Eric B" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> I think in general terms you are probably on the ball. however with >>>> this case: when you re on national telly theres little room >>>> for claiming innocence. so the CPS could probably press for whatever >>>> charge and it would be hard to refute. >>>> >>>> All of this that is beside my point though. I claimed that politicians >>>> influenced justice, see below: >>>> >>>> "Trenton was initially charged with Section 5 of the 'public order >>>> act'. Hansard reports reveal that government ministers asked the >>>> police commissioner to increase the charge so that a custodial >>>> sentence could be achieved. On the morning of his first court >>>> appearance (23 April 2012) Trenton’s charge was significantly >>>> increased via the ancient common law charge of 'public nuisance' under >>>> which conviction can result in life in prison. On the 26 September >>>> 2012 Trenton was found guilty of causing ‘public nuisance’ for >>>> undertaking his protest." >>>> >>>> The maximum sentence is life in prison, unreal ey? So in theory one >>>> could be jailed for life for protesting, which is what he did. Lets >>>> not forget that. Does this equate to setting precedence for jailing >>>> political protesters for how long you want? >>>> >>>> I am hoping for an appeal even though its not been made, for your >>>> benefit, not mine. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Chris Briggs <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Whilst that is an interesting read it does contain one fundamental flaw. >>>>> >>>>> The Police are there to collect the evidence and document the crime. The >>>>> charges are laid and the prosecution is administered by an independent >>>>> authority, the CPS. >>>>> >>>>> It is very unlikely that the CPS would inflate a charge without a better >>>>> than average chance of winning, like anyone else they are governed by >>>>> numbers, it is better for them to lay a lesser charge and secure a >>>>> conviction than it is for them to lay a higher charge and run the risk of >>>>> the defendant getting a discharge. No conviction equals no prosecution >>>>> costs. >>>>> >>>>> If the rower or his solicitor had thought that the charge was unfair or >>>>> it was politically motivated then they have a right to lodge an appeal. I >>>>> don't think >>>>> This has been done. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 23 Oct 2012, at 09:47, "Eric B" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The problem is that politicians are impacting justice and judges are >>>>>> letting it happen. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of the rower that got 6 months my wife read the police had >>>>>> a charge prepared against him that would only >>>>>> warrant for a minor sentence, 2 months or something like that. However >>>>>> some politician, a royalist I might add, wrote a letter to the police >>>>>> chief and suggested he review and maybe charge him for X. As is turns >>>>>> out mr Police chief obliges and X warrants for 6 months in jail. Add >>>>>> to this that apparently 80% of judges in the UK have gone to Oxford in >>>>>> the past and there you go. Horrendous. >>>>>> >>>>>> The way I see if the judge here is the main offender, even with the >>>>>> opportunity to jail him for 6 months it is a judges >>>>>> role to hand out justice, fair justice, not heavy handed, not colored >>>>>> by anything. So the judge could have voided the PMs interference, but >>>>>> didnt. Next thing politicians will running trials! oh hold on.. they >>>>>> are already? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Ian Murray >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> I wouldn't, honestly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that we are currently going down a very dodgy road in this >>>>>>> country. >>>>>>> How many people have been sent to prison recently for saying things on >>>>>>> twitter and so on? Ridiculous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22 Oct 2012, at 14:52, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It was a very very minor assault and does not warrant 4 months in >>>>>>>>>> the big house, IMHO of course.<< >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True if it had been outside a pub, but it was on a football field, >>>>>>>> against a player, during a game. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In my book, that's crossing a line that should not be crossed, and as >>>>>>>> a result, the strongest sentence available should be applied. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It wasn't, according to Sky Sports News, "because he had pleaded >>>>>>>> guilty". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Run it past me how he might have pleaded not guilty?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suspect, Ian, you'd be calling for the same punishments that I'm >>>>>>>> calling for if it had been a Wednesday fan who'd pushed Kenny in the >>>>>>>> face. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> M >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Leedslist mailing list >>>>>>> Info and options: >>>>>>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, email [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Leedslist mailing list >>>>>> Info and options: >>>>>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >>>>>> To unsubscribe, email [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate
