ATTACK IN E.10

[Orientinoz]

So many of these attacks in Leyton lately, Coopers Lane was quite a pleasant road, had a girlfriend who live down there.

That picture shows a van next to the station, looks like the photo was taken from the corner of High Rd and Coopers Lane
Used to be a really old fashioned sports shop there when I was a kid, had loads of antique cricket bats hanging up

You are correct One O, the owners also had a son with downs syndrome who used to sit outside the shop in the summer. His name was Bobby if my memory serves me right...he would always chase the kids away if he was there... chased me a few times...

[tuffers#1]

....

If you know what the case is spen then publish it .

Like i said
I know what the defence barrister said as i heard it & all the evidence.

You do not know the case my friend was involved in & you do not know the case that was reffered to.


If you think you do then as i said publish away.

Tuffers if you know (and understand) what the barrister said, then please tell the forum which 19th Century case the barrister quoted. You won't and or can't do so. Given its at least 30+years since you were in court for this case, it is just possible you have not remembered the position properly, or more likely you haven't got a clue what the law is and are spouting incorrect statements of the law

i have stated what the law on self defence is.

You are simply wrong in law. The law does not state what you claim it does.

Please state the case you think supports your (wrong) statement of law. I will happily publish the judgement of that case once you identify it. You are the one who claims there is such a case, not me. I do not know what case you are referring to because there is no such case that supports your statement of what the legal position is.

The case quoted by the barrister & the judge had nothing to do with self defence Spin. It was to do with arrest & Charge procedure.

Learn to read a post correctly.

Now climb down off of your high horse fella.

[Disoriented]

How on earth did he get away with attempted murder? Disgusting that barristers can argue him off that charge, he is scum and pure evil especially when you consider his previous.

Couldn’t agree more.

[Disoriented]

Tuffers,are you serious, if so that’s the most ridiculous viewpoint I’ve ever come across. Maybe the machete wasn’t in his possession illegally . Sure, we all walk about with machetes just in case we get the urge to smash someone over the head.
I guess it’s in line with your other political views.

Why are you surprised? This eejit gets his kicks arguing contrary views on a daily basis.

Contemptible.

[tuffers#1]

Tuffers,are you serious, if so that’s the most ridiculous viewpoint I’ve ever come across. Maybe the machete wasn’t in his possession illegally . Sure, we all walk about with machetes just in case we get the urge to smash someone over the head.
I guess it’s in line with your other political views.

Why are you surprised? This eejit gets his kicks arguing contrary views on a daily basis.

Contemptible.

Dross interest getting involved again.

Not my opinion Des .

Just experience of a particular case involving a friend
Which was slung out of court by a Judge after a barrister
picked up on a failure of police/ law procedure.

As Spin said to thory boy

As none of us were there we havent heard all the evidence & points of law .

[Thor]

This women needs sacking she is out of touch with reality and another solicitor who has a zero grasp of law and order in this country. She makes me sick. Always in the side of scumbags.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... l#comments

[tuffers#1]

This women needs sacking she is out of touch with reality and another solicitor who has a zero grasp of law and order in this country. She makes me sick. Always in the side of scumbags.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... l#comments

Should the Jurors be sacked from there jobs
as well Thor ?

They rejected the attempted murder chaege on the evidence heard .

[Thor]

Tuffers I’m speaking about her comments. I’ve already spoke about the previous decision.

[tuffers#1]

Tuffers I’m speaking about her comments. I’ve already spoke about the previous decision.

Well she is director of @policeactioncen ,
Why would you expect her to be on the police forces side ?

[Chief crazy horse]

....

If you know what the case is spen then publish it .

Like i said
I know what the defence barrister said as i heard it & all the evidence.

You do not know the case my friend was involved in & you do not know the case that was reffered to.


If you think you do then as i said publish away.

Tuffers if you know (and understand) what the barrister said, then please tell the forum which 19th Century case the barrister quoted. You won't and or can't do so. Given its at least 30+years since you were in court for this case, it is just possible you have not remembered the position properly, or more likely you haven't got a clue what the law is and are spouting incorrect statements of the law

i have stated what the law on self defence is.

You are simply wrong in law. The law does not state what you claim it does.

Please state the case you think supports your (wrong) statement of law. I will happily publish the judgement of that case once you identify it. You are the one who claims there is such a case, not me. I do not know what case you are referring to because there is no such case that supports your statement of what the legal position is.

I think you definitely got to clever clogs with this, spen. Always tell. He's now having the front to tell other people to get off their high horse!

[tuffers#1]

....

If you know what the case is spen then publish it .

Like i said
I know what the defence barrister said as i heard it & all the evidence.

You do not know the case my friend was involved in & you do not know the case that was reffered to.


If you think you do then as i said publish away.

Tuffers if you know (and understand) what the barrister said, then please tell the forum which 19th Century case the barrister quoted. You won't and or can't do so. Given its at least 30+years since you were in court for this case, it is just possible you have not remembered the position properly, or more likely you haven't got a clue what the law is and are spouting incorrect statements of the law

i have stated what the law on self defence is.

You are simply wrong in law. The law does not state what you claim it does.

Please state the case you think supports your (wrong) statement of law. I will happily publish the judgement of that case once you identify it. You are the one who claims there is such a case, not me. I do not know what case you are referring to because there is no such case that supports your statement of what the legal position is.

I think you definitely got to clever clogs with this, spen. Always tell. He's now having the front to tell other people to get off their high horse!

Not at all CCH

Spin tried to correct something i had said as he is an expert in law.

However he misread the point i was making in my post .

I just pointed out he was wrong & needed to climb down from his role of Chief of Law
On the board.


Hence why he hasnt yet responded or even asked what the incorrect arrest & charges were .

[spen666]

Tuffers if you know (and understand) what the barrister said, then please tell the forum which 19th Century case the barrister quoted. You won't and or can't do so. Given its at least 30+years since you were in court for this case, it is just possible you have not remembered the position properly, or more likely you haven't got a clue what the law is and are spouting incorrect statements of the law

i have stated what the law on self defence is.

You are simply wrong in law. The law does not state what you claim it does.

Please state the case you think supports your (wrong) statement of law. I will happily publish the judgement of that case once you identify it. You are the one who claims there is such a case, not me. I do not know what case you are referring to because there is no such case that supports your statement of what the legal position is.

I think you definitely got to clever clogs with this, spen. Always tell. He's now having the front to tell other people to get off their high horse!

Not at all CCH

Spin tried to correct something i had said as he is an expert in law.

However he misread the point i was making in my post .

I just pointed out he was wrong & needed to climb down from his role of Chief of Law
On the board.


Hence why he hasnt yet responded or even asked what the incorrect arrest & charges were .

Turrets I haven't responded because I have been out. Forgive me for having a life away from athis message board


I don't need to ask re charges in your friends case, because the law on self defence is not charge specific.....but bring an expert in the law you would know that.


Now are you going to tell the board the 19th century case you claim allows people to kill police officers if wrongly arrested or are you going to avoid that because there is no such case.

[tuffers#1]

Im not going to do that Spin
But i will tell you that my mate was arrested & charged with being drunk.
The defence barrister asked all 7 witnesses ( police officers) 2 questions which were ,
Why he was arrested & what was the charge .
On both occasions they responded being drunk.

When prosecution had finished & defence was asked to
Start his defence he directed the judge to a similar case
A 150 years plus previous where a man was arrested for being drunk as well ( im pretty sure) which resulted in the death of the police officer.

As the charge of being drunk is NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE , the charge was slung out .

He referred this case to my friends case which later also had charges of A.B.H criminal damage against a property
resisting arrest etc

The judge had no choice & had to dismiss the case &
all charges involving my friend, on the basis of a similar previous case.


Now as im sure you are aware spin
Had the police arrested & charged
my friend for
drunk & disorderly
Drunk & incapable
Drunk & in charge of a minor
Drunk in charge of a vehicle
Etc etc my friend would have been sentenced to
Probably around 6 years in Jail.
Go check it out it happened in 1989
Court case was either late 89 or early 90 .

Good luck fella

[Thor]

Well spen what's your retort to tuffers?

[Howling Mad Murdock]

https://twitter.com/khan_sophie

This solicitor wants the officer disciplined.

[Thor]

She can f right off, shes an idiot of the highest order. She should be charged with being an absolute minger who got proper whacked with the ugly stick.

[tuffers#1]

She can f right off, shes an idiot of the highest order. She should be charged with being an absolute minger who got proper whacked with the ugly stick.

Is that a criminal offence though Thor ?

What i did find interesting , was that the judge
decided not to increase the sentence which was in there power to do so .

A life sentence could have been given , but decided against this .

Makes you wonder why .

[Thor]

Liberal elite that's why.

[tuffers#1]

or possibly something else ?

I have no axe to grind
Does make you.wonder
what kind of bloke he might have been
If he wasnt homeless & living out of a van.

Although he could just be a wrong un

[Max B Gold]

Im not going to do that Spin
But i will tell you that my mate was arrested & charged with being drunk.
The defence barrister asked all 7 witnesses ( police officers) 2 questions which were ,
Why he was arrested & what was the charge .
On both occasions they responded being drunk.

When prosecution had finished & defence was asked to
Start his defence he directed the judge to a similar case
A 150 years plus previous where a man was arrested for being drunk as well ( im pretty sure) which resulted in the death of the police officer.

As the charge of being drunk is NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE , the charge was slung out .

He referred this case to my friends case which later also had charges of A.B.H criminal damage against a property
resisting arrest etc

The judge had no choice & had to dismiss the case &
all charges involving my friend, on the basis of a similar previous case.


Now as im sure you are aware spin
Had the police arrested & charged
my friend for
drunk & disorderly
Drunk & incapable
Drunk & in charge of a minor
Drunk in charge of a vehicle
Etc etc my friend would have been sentenced to
Probably around 6 years in Jail.
Go check it out it happened in 1989
Court case was either late 89 or early 90 .

Good luck fella

If the charge of being drunk is not a criminal offence how did it ever get to court?

[tuffers#1]

Im not going to do that Spin
But i will tell you that my mate was arrested & charged with being drunk.
The defence barrister asked all 7 witnesses ( police officers) 2 questions which were ,
Why he was arrested & what was the charge .
On both occasions they responded being drunk.

When prosecution had finished & defence was asked to
Start his defence he directed the judge to a similar case
A 150 years plus previous where a man was arrested for being drunk as well ( im pretty sure) which resulted in the death of the police officer.

As the charge of being drunk is NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE , the charge was slung out .

He referred this case to my friends case which later also had charges of A.B.H criminal damage against a property
resisting arrest etc

The judge had no choice & had to dismiss the case &
all charges involving my friend, on the basis of a similar previous case.


Now as im sure you are aware spin
Had the police arrested & charged
my friend for
drunk & disorderly
Drunk & incapable
Drunk & in charge of a minor
Drunk in charge of a vehicle
Etc etc my friend would have been sentenced to
Probably around 6 years in Jail.
Go check it out it happened in 1989
Court case was either late 89 or early 90 .

Good luck fella

If the charge of being drunk is not a criminal offence how did it ever get to court?

Because the Rozzers wanted it to i guess.
They also didnt do due dilligence on there case.
Charging someone for being drunk.

The Barristers also wanted there day in court for the win fees no doubt as well as the case win numbers.

So in answer to Thors original question about why
The guy wasnt sentenced for attempted murder
All i have done is try to show an example of the police not doing things properly .
Had they done so im sure the fella would have been convicted of attempted murder.
Its possible it is something completely different.

[Max B Gold]

Im not going to do that Spin
But i will tell you that my mate was arrested & charged with being drunk.
The defence barrister asked all 7 witnesses ( police officers) 2 questions which were ,
Why he was arrested & what was the charge .
On both occasions they responded being drunk.

When prosecution had finished & defence was asked to
Start his defence he directed the judge to a similar case
A 150 years plus previous where a man was arrested for being drunk as well ( im pretty sure) which resulted in the death of the police officer.

As the charge of being drunk is NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE , the charge was slung out .

He referred this case to my friends case which later also had charges of A.B.H criminal damage against a property
resisting arrest etc

The judge had no choice & had to dismiss the case &
all charges involving my friend, on the basis of a similar previous case.


Now as im sure you are aware spin
Had the police arrested & charged
my friend for
drunk & disorderly
Drunk & incapable
Drunk & in charge of a minor
Drunk in charge of a vehicle
Etc etc my friend would have been sentenced to
Probably around 6 years in Jail.
Go check it out it happened in 1989
Court case was either late 89 or early 90 .

Good luck fella

If the charge of being drunk is not a criminal offence how did it ever get to court?

Because the Rozzers wanted it to i guess.
They also didnt do due dilligence on there case.
Charging someone for being drunk.

The Barristers also wanted there day in court for the win fees no doubt as well as the case win numbers.

So in answer to Thors original question about why
The guy wasnt sentenced for attempted murder
All i have done is try to show an example of the police not doing things properly .
Had they done so im sure the fella would have been convicted of attempted murder.
Its possible it is something completely different.

But that was my point if being drunk isn't an offence. How could he be charged?

Moreover, despite what the Filth wanted why was he presented to the Court by the CPS?

Are you actually saying that justice in England is a legal sham?

[tuffers#1]

If the charge of being drunk is not a criminal offence how did it ever get to court?

Because the Rozzers wanted it to i guess.
They also didnt do due dilligence on there case.
Charging someone for being drunk.

The Barristers also wanted there day in court for the win fees no doubt as well as the case win numbers.

So in answer to Thors original question about why
The guy wasnt sentenced for attempted murder
All i have done is try to show an example of the police not doing things properly .
Had they done so im sure the fella would have been convicted of attempted murder.
Its possible it is something completely different.

But that was my point if being drunk isn't an offence. How could he be charged?

Moreover, despite what the Filth wanted why was he presented to the Court by the CPS?

Are you actually saying that justice in England is a legal sham?

Im not sure if the CPS was any good at the time Max.
It was only 3 or 4 years old
I think the Rozzer got so over excited at all the other charges listed
that they must have had an oversight on the original arrest & Charge sheet.

[tuffers#1]

Well spen what's your retort to tuffers?

Finally Thor 2.5 years later Spin is telling us you get 6 months for abh !!

[tuffers#1]

Oh sorry Thor you dont come here anymore .