Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Chief crazy horse wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:13 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:20 pm

Chief crazy horse wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:43 am And I see you are still banging on with Google. Whatever you keep digging up,

street crime in Leyton is "nowhere" near what it used to be.

So have you done a complete 180 CCH
You're now saying the opposite of what you started saying .
Originally it was Never,
Now its nowhere near what it used to be
Make up your mind chappie

Nothing like a 180. You know what I'm saying. And if we're talking about the 60's and before it was as good as never. See if you can dig out a street crime from 1929..
Leyton never had street crime and murder from past years, anything like today.
You're a disgrace, given the brutal assault with a machete on a copper for being questioned about non insurance, when all you can say is that the assailant was provoked - an utter disgrace.

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:33 pm

Chief crazy horse wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:13 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:20 pm

So have you done a complete 180 CCH
You're now saying the opposite of what you started saying .
Originally it was Never,
Now its nowhere near what it used to be
Make up your mind chappie

Nothing like a 180. You know what I'm saying. And if we're talking about the 60's and before it was as good as never. See if you can dig out a street crime from 1929..
Leyton never had street crime and murder from past years, anything like today.
You're a disgrace, given the brutal assault with a machete on a copper for being questioned about non insurance, when all you can say is that the assailant was provoked - an utter disgrace.

Whats that semi circle ?

P.s
Meaning of
Provoke


/prəˈvəʊk/
verb
stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.

Seems to be what happened doesnt it

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:05 pm Show your working, strange occasional stalker.

CreamofSumYungGai wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:12 am

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:05 pm Show your working, strange occasional stalker.

an unhealthy ianterest in both you and me

Chief crazy horse wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:47 am

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:33 pm

Chief crazy horse wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:13 pm

Nothing like a 180. You know what I'm saying. And if we're talking about the 60's and before it was as good as never. See if you can dig out a street crime from 1929..
Leyton never had street crime and murder from past years, anything like today.
You're a disgrace, given the brutal assault with a machete on a copper for being questioned about non insurance, when all you can say is that the assailant was provoked - an utter disgrace.

Whats that semi circle ?

P.s
Meaning of
Provoke


/prəˈvəʊk/
verb
stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.

Seems to be what happened doesnt it

Playing on words once again I see. Now clutching at straws by giving an English lesson on the definition of the word provoke. (to remind you, your disgraceful response was, "the attack was provoked by police".) This signals the time for me to abort this thread. And I see no reason to change my words as much as the truth might pain you: 'There was never street crime and murder in Leyton, in years past, like there is today'.

Thor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:50 pm 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.

Thor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:50 pm 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.

Redcard wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:01 pm 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.

Thor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:54 pm I know spen but come on... if I get in a fight it's just that, if I pull a bat on that person chances are I'm going to hurt them pretty bad, if I pull out a machete quite possibly I'm gonna kill that person. See where I'm going with this?

There is no way him pulling that out wasn't to tickle him with, it was to hurt him really bad or even kill them.

Thor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:54 pm I know spen but come on... if I get in a fight it's just that, if I pull a bat on that person chances are I'm going to hurt them pretty bad, if I pull out a machete quite possibly I'm gonna kill that person. See where I'm going with this?

There is no way him pulling that out wasn't to tickle him with, it was to hurt him really bad or even kill them.

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:47 pm

Redcard wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:01 pm 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.

It wasnt my opinion .

Also the machete was in his van.
He wasnt walking anywhere with it

My mates case was slung out as
It was a point of law from the 1800s .
The barrister quoted it in the court.
Such & such a case from 1857 ( or whenever)
So & so vs the crown .

" if an officer of the law tries to arrest a person & the reasoning behind that arrest is unclear , the suspect
Is entitled to defend himself with full force , even if that
force takes the life of said officer ".

Got nothing to do with my political views which you obviously have no understanding of as it is.

If he was guilty of attempted murder the judge would have directed the jurors to find him guilty , if it was a wrongful arrest & charge then the judge has to direct a jury to ignore it.

As the judge did with my mate who was arrested & then charged for being drunk.
Which in this country is not a criminal offence.

My mate could have killed the copper & would have got off as the initial charge & arrest were both incorrect.

Possibly something very similar happened here.

spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:33 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:47 pm

Redcard wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:01 pm 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.

It wasnt my opinion .

Also the machete was in his van.
He wasnt walking anywhere with it

My mates case was slung out as
It was a point of law from the 1800s .
The barrister quoted it in the court.
Such & such a case from 1857 ( or whenever)
So & so vs the crown .

" if an officer of the law tries to arrest a person & the reasoning behind that arrest is unclear , the suspect
Is entitled to defend himself with full force , even if that
force takes the life of said officer ".

Got nothing to do with my political views which you obviously have no understanding of as it is.

If he was guilty of attempted murder the judge would have directed the jurors to find him guilty , if it was a wrongful arrest & charge then the judge has to direct a jury to ignore it.

As the judge did with my mate who was arrested & then charged for being drunk.
Which in this country is not a criminal offence.

My mate could have killed the copper & would have got off as the initial charge & arrest were both incorrect.

Possibly something very similar happened here.

Tuffers, your understanding of the law and your statement of the case is very inaccurate. The case you are referring to is one in relation to self defence. You are only allowed to use sufficient force as you believe is necessary to defend yourself. You are not allowed to kill anyone police officer simply for arresting you if you do not understand why.

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:14 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:33 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:47 pm

It wasnt my opinion .

Also the machete was in his van.
He wasnt walking anywhere with it

My mates case was slung out as
It was a point of law from the 1800s .
The barrister quoted it in the court.
Such & such a case from 1857 ( or whenever)
So & so vs the crown .

" if an officer of the law tries to arrest a person & the reasoning behind that arrest is unclear , the suspect
Is entitled to defend himself with full force , even if that
force takes the life of said officer ".

Got nothing to do with my political views which you obviously have no understanding of as it is.

If he was guilty of attempted murder the judge would have directed the jurors to find him guilty , if it was a wrongful arrest & charge then the judge has to direct a jury to ignore it.

As the judge did with my mate who was arrested & then charged for being drunk.
Which in this country is not a criminal offence.

My mate could have killed the copper & would have got off as the initial charge & arrest were both incorrect.

Possibly something very similar happened here.

Tuffers, your understanding of the law and your statement of the case is very inaccurate. The case you are referring to is one in relation to self defence. You are only allowed to use sufficient force as you believe is necessary to defend yourself. You are not allowed to kill anyone police officer simply for arresting you if you do not understand why.

Spen i am refering specifically to my friends case where
After hearing all prosecution evidence , my friends
Defence barrister stood up quoted the case & said to the judge , we ask this to be slung out.

The copper originally spoke to him because he was having a slash.
It then developed into a scuffle then the arrest & charge were made.

Am incorrect charge of being drunk

Understanding , meant reason for arrest was not clear & that as i already stated the accused would be within there rights to defend themselves with full force , even if that resulted in the death of the officer , as happened in the case so & so v the crown 1800s.

The judge without needing to hear defence evidence directed that all charges be dropped & the case to be dismissed.

The case from the 1800s was explained to us later by the barrister, & that the reason for the arrest was false or unclear & the accused was in fear of his life & used a knife on the policeman who died.

He was released from court with no charge as
It was not clear & therefore not understood why he was being attacked by the police & then arrested.

Only going by what i heard the barrister & the judge say in the court .

I have no reason to disbelieve them

Just trying to explain a possible reason why this fella had the attempted murder charge dropped.

spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:48 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:14 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:33 pm

Tuffers, your understanding of the law and your statement of the case is very inaccurate. The case you are referring to is one in relation to self defence. You are only allowed to use sufficient force as you believe is necessary to defend yourself. You are not allowed to kill anyone police officer simply for arresting you if you do not understand why.

Spen i am refering specifically to my friends case where
After hearing all prosecution evidence , my friends
Defence barrister stood up quoted the case & said to the judge , we ask this to be slung out.

The copper originally spoke to him because he was having a slash.
It then developed into a scuffle then the arrest & charge were made.

Am incorrect charge of being drunk

Understanding , meant reason for arrest was not clear & that as i already stated the accused would be within there rights to defend themselves with full force , even if that resulted in the death of the officer , as happened in the case so & so v the crown 1800s.

The judge without needing to hear defence evidence directed that all charges be dropped & the case to be dismissed.

The case from the 1800s was explained to us later by the barrister, & that the reason for the arrest was false or unclear & the accused was in fear of his life & used a knife on the policeman who died.

He was released from court with no charge as
It was not clear & therefore not understood why he was being attacked by the police & then arrested.

Only going by what i heard the barrister & the judge say in the court .

I have no reason to disbelieve them

Just trying to explain a possible reason why this fella had the attempted murder charge dropped.

Tuffers as I said before you are not correct in law.

There is no case that says what you claim it does. You either did not hear correctly or you did not understand the submission and the case referred to.

Try stating what the case is or what the Legislation referred to by the barrister is. I am quite happy to publish the judgement of the case you claim the barrister quoted so the forum can read it for themselves and see it does not state what you think it does.

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:56 pm
....

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.