The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

If I remember rightly making an affray was always considered serious crime. Has that changed?

[thebish]

If I remember rightly making an affray was always considered serious crime. Has that changed?

Affray

(Archbold 29-18 to 29-24)

An offence under section 3 is triable either way. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is three years' imprisonment and/or a fine of unlimited amount. On summary conviction the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding level 5.

Under section 3 of the Act, it must be proved that a person has used or threatened:

unlawful violence
towards another
and his conduct is such as would cause
a person of reasonable firmness
present at the scene
to fear for his personal safety.

The seriousness of the offence lies in the effect that the behaviour of the accused has on members of the public who may have been put in fear. There must be some conduct, beyond the use of words, which is threatening and directed towards a person or persons. Mere words are not enough. Violent conduct towards property alone is not sufficient for the purposes of an offence under section 3. For a definition of 'violence' in affray - section 8 of the Act (Archbold 29-38).

The offence may be committed in a public or private place.

The notional bystander test is explained in the case of (R v Sanchez [1996] Crim. L.R. 572CA), and asserts that the hypothetical bystander, rather than the victim, must be put in fear for his or her personal safety. Apart from the hypothetical bystander, there must be present a "victim" against whom the violence is to be directed (I & Others v DPP (2002) 1 AC 285 HL).

It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that unlawful violence has been used. There has to be violence of such a kind that a bystander would fear for his safety. Where the violence is focused solely and exclusively on the victim, such that it would be incapable of causing a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his safety, then the offence is not made out (Leeson v DPP, unreported (2010)).

The level of conduct appropriate for charges under Section 3 will often fall comfortably within the ambit of that anticipated within S4 POA. Affray should be considered in circumstances of serious and indiscriminate violence. Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a Section 3 offence include:

A fight between two or more people in a place where members of the general public are present (for example in a public house, discotheque, restaurant or street) with a level of violence such as would put them in substantial fear (as opposed to passing concern) for their safety (even though the fighting is not directed towards them);
Indiscriminate throwing of objects directed towards a group of people in circumstances where serious injury is or is likely to be caused;
The wielding of a weapon of a type or in a manner likely to cause people substantial fear for their safety or a person armed with a weapon who, when approached by police officers, brandishes the weapon and threatens to use it against them;
Incidents within a dwelling should not be charged as affray merely because a lesser public order charge is not available. Offences of assault are likely to be more appropriate. Affray should be considered in circumstances analogous to those listed above where serious violence is used or threatened, and with due regard to the principles set out in R v Sanchez.

The accused must have intended to use or threaten violence; or have been aware that his conduct may be violent or may threaten violence.

The crown court is likely to be the more appropriate venue if a charge of affray is preferred.

[Hoboh]

i sat on a jury a few years ago on an affray case, was a bit of a farce, briefly two soldiers (Para's) went in a boozer for a pint where the ex bint of one of the lads and new boyfreind and about a dozen of his mates happend to be. The soldiers swiftly drunk their ale after realising (Probs due to ex cow stirring things up) trouble was brewing and tried to leave at which point "new bone" for ex and his mates attacked them with glasses and tables, basically owt that could be chucked and some smartass locked the door. Now if you'd seen these two fellas frankly you'd be a nutter to attack them and they set to work demolishing all their assailants in good style (the odd broken arm, jaw, nose etc) Up pop the old bill arrest the Soldiers and due to witnesses mainly mates of mates (turns out this was new boners local about which they had no idea). They are charged with affray! we the jury were expected to swallow that a pub full of people, half of whom were actively attacking the Soldiers were in fear for their safety/lives etc by the action of the two lads. Case did not take long to consider, not guilty, waste of taxpayers money.
Ps there was somthing fooking hilerious in the jury room about this case but of course I ain't allowed to tell

[Lord Kangana]

Alistair Darling.

Always liked the man.

[Bruce Rioja]

A day like today is not a day for soundbites, we can leave those at home, but I feel the hand of history upon our shoulder

[thebish]

Correct me if I am wrong - but, among the plethora of promises made by the coalition government - the main one - the stand-or-fall one, the one the trumpeted loudest and wanked themselves to sleep over was the promise to bring down public sector borrowing.

yet, net public sector borrowing rose to £15.9bn last month - the HIGHEST it has ever been under any UK government ever for August. It was £2.7 BILLION pounds more than predicted.

[Worthy4England]

Correct me if I am wrong - but, among the plethora of promises made by the coalition government - the main one - the stand-or-fall one, the one the trumpeted loudest and wanked themselves to sleep over was the promise to bring down public sector borrowing.

yet, net public sector borrowing rose to £15.9bn last month - the HIGHEST it has ever been under any UK government ever for August. It was £2.7 BILLION pounds more than predicted.

Well if we don't make all those cuts much faster, and within the first year of being in power, we'll go bankrupt. Doing them any slower than that, as suggested by the opposition, would be folly.

[Lord Kangana]

Its interesting that the default defence is "its easy being in opposition".

Well, forgive me, but doesn't that kind of stop you from blaming the last government for the mess they made?

[thebish]

Correct me if I am wrong - but, among the plethora of promises made by the coalition government - the main one - the stand-or-fall one, the one the trumpeted loudest and wanked themselves to sleep over was the promise to bring down public sector borrowing.

yet, net public sector borrowing rose to £15.9bn last month - the HIGHEST it has ever been under any UK government ever for August. It was £2.7 BILLION pounds more than predicted.

Well if we don't make all those cuts much faster, and within the first year of being in power, we'll go bankrupt. Doing them any slower than that, as suggested by the opposition, would be folly.

respectfully - that's bollox! Even the IMF has just said that we will probably have to stimulate growth in order to get our borrowing down. reducing borrowing is not achieved simply by cutting expenditure - without growth - borrowing WILL go up, however much you cut... at the moment it is likely that the money saved by cuts is overwhelmed by the income lost by the slow-down in growth... there is no point cutting expenditure at a rate that ensures that your income loss is even greater...

either way - the promise was to REDUCE borrowing - actually they have INCREASED borrowing.

[Worthy4England]

Correct me if I am wrong - but, among the plethora of promises made by the coalition government - the main one - the stand-or-fall one, the one the trumpeted loudest and wanked themselves to sleep over was the promise to bring down public sector borrowing.

yet, net public sector borrowing rose to £15.9bn last month - the HIGHEST it has ever been under any UK government ever for August. It was £2.7 BILLION pounds more than predicted.

Well if we don't make all those cuts much faster, and within the first year of being in power, we'll go bankrupt. Doing them any slower than that, as suggested by the opposition, would be folly.

respectfully - that's bollox! Even the IMF has just said that we will probably have to stimulate growth in order to get our borrowing down. reducing borrowing is not achieved simply by cutting expenditure - without growth - borrowing WILL go up, however much you cut... at the moment it is likely that the money saved by cuts is overwhelmed by the income lost by the slow-down in growth... there is no point cutting expenditure at a rate that ensures that your income loss is even greater...

either way - the promise was to REDUCE borrowing - actually they have INCREASED borrowing.

Respectfully, I didn't say it. Messrs Cameron and Osborne did...

So feel free to bolloxs away.

[Lord Kangana]

Sometimes history can teach us a great deal.

A political heavyweight like Roosevelt always claimed he wished he'd injected more money in to the New Deal. Many of our problems are as political as economic.

But the major problem (if we are to simply to deal with the problem as presented, and not wish to make changes) is the banking systems failure to cooperate in a manner befitting an industry bailed out by its customers without their prior consent. They really need to pull their collective fingers out, as there just won't be the ability to quantitatively ease in the same manner should we lurch back into a recession.

[thebish]

Correct me if I am wrong - but, among the plethora of promises made by the coalition government - the main one - the stand-or-fall one, the one the trumpeted loudest and wanked themselves to sleep over was the promise to bring down public sector borrowing.

yet, net public sector borrowing rose to £15.9bn last month - the HIGHEST it has ever been under any UK government ever for August. It was £2.7 BILLION pounds more than predicted.

Well if we don't make all those cuts much faster, and within the first year of being in power, we'll go bankrupt. Doing them any slower than that, as suggested by the opposition, would be folly.

respectfully - that's bollox! Even the IMF has just said that we will probably have to stimulate growth in order to get our borrowing down. reducing borrowing is not achieved simply by cutting expenditure - without growth - borrowing WILL go up, however much you cut... at the moment it is likely that the money saved by cuts is overwhelmed by the income lost by the slow-down in growth... there is no point cutting expenditure at a rate that ensures that your income loss is even greater...

either way - the promise was to REDUCE borrowing - actually they have INCREASED borrowing.

Respectfully, I didn't say it. Messrs Cameron and Osborne did...

So feel free to bolloxs away.

perhaps when you are not talking as Worthy but as Cameron and Osborne - you could indicate somehow? Otherwise I am assuming it is you!

[Worthy4England]

Correct me if I am wrong - but, among the plethora of promises made by the coalition government - the main one - the stand-or-fall one, the one the trumpeted loudest and wanked themselves to sleep over was the promise to bring down public sector borrowing.

yet, net public sector borrowing rose to £15.9bn last month - the HIGHEST it has ever been under any UK government ever for August. It was £2.7 BILLION pounds more than predicted.

Well if we don't make all those cuts much faster, and within the first year of being in power, we'll go bankrupt. Doing them any slower than that, as suggested by the opposition, would be folly.

respectfully - that's bollox! Even the IMF has just said that we will probably have to stimulate growth in order to get our borrowing down. reducing borrowing is not achieved simply by cutting expenditure - without growth - borrowing WILL go up, however much you cut... at the moment it is likely that the money saved by cuts is overwhelmed by the income lost by the slow-down in growth... there is no point cutting expenditure at a rate that ensures that your income loss is even greater...

either way - the promise was to REDUCE borrowing - actually they have INCREASED borrowing.

Respectfully, I didn't say it. Messrs Cameron and Osborne did...

So feel free to bolloxs away.

perhaps when you are not talking as Worthy but as Cameron and Osborne - you could indicate somehow? Otherwise I am assuming it is you!

I indicated by referring to the cuts needing to be made within the first year of us being in power. Worthy is not currently in power nor a Tory. Nor, as it happens, is Worthy in opposition either.

[thebish]

I indicated by referring to the cuts needing to be made within the first year of us being in power. Worthy is not currently in power nor a Tory. Nor, as it happens, is Worthy in opposition either.

hmmm... a bit obscure for my brain - but "we" could also refer to "we" the country as the cuts are being made on our behalf.

are you an official spokesman - or is it just an occasional hobby?

(and - worthy or not - it's still bollox)

[Worthy4England]

I indicated by referring to the cuts needing to be made within the first year of us being in power. Worthy is not currently in power nor a Tory. Nor, as it happens, is Worthy in opposition either.

hmmm... a bit obscure for my brain - but "we" could also refer to "we" the country as the cuts are being made on our behalf.

are you an official spokesman - or is it just an occasional hobby?

(and - worthy or not - it's still bollox)

It could refer to we the country, but that would have made, us the country, in power.

I do try and pitch my official spokesman's oratory at the level of the audience, but I fear I must've overestimated their intellectual capacity in this case. I'll be clearer in future.

Yes, it's bollocks.

[thebish]

Yes, it's bollocks.

I knew you agreed with me really - it's just so hard for you you to say it!

let it out worthy - it'll be good for you!

[Worthy4England]

Yes, it's bollocks.

I knew you agreed with me really - it's just so hard for you you to say it!

let it out worthy - it'll be good for you!

I thought I was agreeing with you first go. I'll try and remember sarcasm smilies next time...

[thebish]

Yes, it's bollocks.

I knew you agreed with me really - it's just so hard for you you to say it!

let it out worthy - it'll be good for you!

I thought I was agreeing with you first go. I'll try and remember sarcasm smilies next time...

no - that was cameron and osborne - not you! remember?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Sometimes history can teach us a great deal.

A political heavyweight like Roosevelt always claimed he wished he'd injected more money in to the New Deal. Many of our problems are as political as economic.

Maybe this isn't what you're doing, but why do people insist on carping on about the New Deal and 1930s economics as if it's at all relevant to the problems we face today?

And at any rate, all that taught us was that it takes a bloody big war against the Germans to really get things going again...

[Worthy4England]

Yes, it's bollocks.

I knew you agreed with me really - it's just so hard for you you to say it!

let it out worthy - it'll be good for you!

I thought I was agreeing with you first go. I'll try and remember sarcasm smilies next time...

no - that was cameron and osborne - not you! remember?

They were dis-agreeing with you, as you pointed out, it was bollox.