[News] Mike Amesbury MP - Rocky VIII: Backbench Brawler

[Weststander]

That’s very good advice until you feel threatened…. Probably a firm grip round their throat would suffice though

I’ve been involved in stuff very rarely as an adult, I can look after myself (not meant in the NSC gorilla sense ), but my control in the moment has always left me in good stead. Never in bother with the police, but the instigators royally fckd up.

 

[essbee1]

I heard a rumour that the bloke he belted had offered him a ticket to watch Crawley FC next Saturday.

 

[jcdenton08]

Affray or common assault.

Dependent on the injuries suffered by the victim. Bruises/broken nose/black eye/lost tooth would be Actual Bodily Harm (assault by beating)

 

[TugWilson]

I am waiting to see a surgeon in Salisbury who specializes in spinal surgery . I have had trouble for many years but only recently had a follow up MRI scan which showed considerable damage and a severe curvature in the neck . Long story short a bad blow to my head or neck could result in a partial or complete paralysis , as their is nerve pressure involved , although until i meet him i know very little detail as to what will be done . So i have no sympathy for this coward , there are so many people out there who are walking around with timebomb injuries that they may not even be fully aware of .

 

[Weststander]

Dependent on the injuries suffered by the victim. Bruises/broken nose/black eye/lost tooth would be Actual Bodily Harm (assault by beating)

Serving as a juror, the judge directed GBH to be lifelong injuries or something that’ll have an impact for a long time. For example one of the victims used to run, but the injuries meant he wouldn’t get back to that for 3 or 4 years but not permanently stopped. Resulted in GBH convictions.

 

[jcdenton08]

Serving as a juror, the judge directed GBH to be lifelong injuries or something that’ll have an impact for a long time. For example one of the victims used to run, but the injuries meant he wouldn’t get back to that for 3 or 4 years but not permanently stopped. Resulted in GBH convictions.

Yep, sounds in line with my experiences too. But ABH is a different thing to GBH. Actual bodily harm is as it sounds - causing probable harm to someone intentionally such as the examples I gave above.

 

[Algernon]

I don't understand the "no justification whatsoever to punch him" argument.
If the bloke had just told Amesbury he had a knife and should he walk away he would stab him, then I'm all for him getting a smack in the chops and a few others to quieten him down.
I don't expect that's the case though. I'll just wait and see what excuses from both come out.

 

[Weststander]

Yep, sounds in line with my experiences too. But ABH is a different thing to GBH. Actual bodily harm is as it sounds - causing probable harm to someone intentionally such as the examples I gave above.

That’s why the police photograph victims, looking for bruises, scratches, bike marks, constituting bodily harm for ABH. Did Amesbury scratch the bald head too?

 

[jcdenton08]

I don't understand the "no justification whatsoever to punch him" argument.

Decades of legal precedent.

There is no justification in British Law for striking a person unless that person is facing an imminent risk to their personal safety. And even then, physically assaulting someone in self-defence would be considered “an act of last resort”.

If your (completely hypothetical) example of the victim having threatened Amesbury with a knife were true, under cross-examination Amesbury would be asked “Believing the victim to be armed with a deadly weapon, why would you initiate physical conflict which could have led to serious injury or death?”.

I am not legally trained, but have watched dozens of trials of assaults from the gallery (try it folks, I think it’s fascinating as a day out) and every single time a not-guilty plea has been entered, the defence has argued self-defence.

I strongly suspect self-defence is not a viable defence strategy with this quality of CCTV evidence. Words and threats alone do not constitute an attack, and the prosecution will be asking “if you felt threatened, why did you make no effort to distance yourself from the threat”.

Another thing the police and CPS will be closely looking at is circumstance. The assault occurred at 3am in the town centre, the suspect will be questioned about his conduct that evening. Was he drunk or on other substances? Was his intoxication a factor in his decision making?

As I’ve said before, in a case such as this, he can expect to be charged in the coming week, I believe the evidence is overwhelming thanks to the CCTV, he will plead guilty at the earliest opportunity using self-defence in mitigation, and receive either a community order or at worst a suspended prison sentence of approx. 16 weeks.

 

[TugWilson]

I love that, him saying “he felt threatened” like he was going to say anything out after knocking some bloke out without physically being under threat

The idiot looses his argument after the guy was felled by continuing the attack .

 

[jcdenton08]

The idiot looses his argument after the guy was felled by continuing the attack .

“Mr Amesbury, after you had punched him to the floor, you punched him again in the head. Did you still believe him to be a threat at this time?”

 

[Weststander]

Decades of legal precedent.

There is no justification in British Law for striking a person unless that person is facing an imminent risk to their personal safety. And even then, physically assaulting someone in self-defence would be considered “an act of last resort”.

If your (completely hypothetical) example of the victim having threatened Amesbury with a knife were true, under cross-examination Amesbury would be asked “Believing the victim to be armed with a deadly weapon, why would you initiate physical conflict which could have led to serious injury or death?”.

I am not legally trained, but have watched dozens of trials of assaults from the gallery (try it folks, I think it’s fascinating as a day out) and every single time a not-guilty plea has been entered, the defence has argued self-defence.

I strongly suspect self-defence is not a viable defence strategy with this quality of CCTV evidence. Words and threats alone do not constitute an attack, and the prosecution will be asking “if you felt threatened, why did you make no effort to distance yourself from the threat”.

Another thing the police and CPS will be closely looking at is circumstance. The assault occurred at 3am in the town centre, the suspect will be questioned about his conduct that evening. Was he drunk or on other substances? Was his intoxication a factor in his decision making?

As I’ve said before, in a case such as this, he can expect to be charged in the coming week, I believe the evidence is overwhelming thanks to the CCTV, he will plead guilty at the earliest opportunity using self-defence in mitigation, and receive either a community order or at worst a suspended prison sentence of approx. 16 weeks.

Good law. Without it Neanderthals up and down the land would be settling rows with violence.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I'm not sure "immediately" is correct here.

Labour's statement says: “Mike Amesbury MP has been assisting Cheshire Police with their inquiries following an incident on Friday night. As these inquiries are now ongoing, the Labour Party has administratively suspended Mr Amesbury’s membership of the Labour Party pending an investigation.”

That statement was released this evening.

The video of the post-assault aftermath was doing the rounds yesterday.

Amesbury's "I felt threatened" statement was released at 4:30pm yesterday.

The video of Amesbury lamping the bloke appeared today.

So, Labour don't seem to have suspended him immediately due to him "assisting Cheshire Police with their inquiries", they only seem to have acted after the incriminating video was spread far and wide.

But, yes, suspending him - eventually - was the correct course of action.

Doesn’t that mean they’ve suspended him after compelling evidence emerged as opposed to suspending him on a mere allegation?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

He's lucky some kind folk stopped him

 

[jcdenton08]

Oh that’s done him. That is assault by beating, no question.

 

[Bozza]

He's lucky some kind folk stopped him

Can you remind me which of the two gentlemen involved issued a public statement about feeling threatened?

 

[jcdenton08]

Of course, this will mean the loss of two Labour MP’s already. But this one isn’t about the colour of the rosette, it’s a violent thug beating someone up on the street like a hoodlum.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I agree, but from the BBC article linked.

In July 2023, a 56-year-old man was found guilty of stalking and harassing Amesbury at his constituency office and in town.

No doubt the police will be charging him soon, and then the legal course of action will take place.

We live in a time when a lot of people have been saying they don't / can't trust the Police, (like kids who carry knives, etc,) so what message does this incident send out if even an MP choses to ignore the option of involving the Police but instead he decided to take matters into their own hands and resorts to violence by punching someone like that ?

Even if this incident is in any way connected to the 56 year old who was found guilty of stalking and harassment (not saying it is) i can't see how that ever justifies the MP's actions here. Why didn't the MP just get on the phone to the Police to report them instead? (especially as his statement said he felt threatened)

Even if they don't end up attending, the fact you are on the phone to or have made the Police aware of something happening means it is highly likely to be enough to end the incident and result in the other party leave them alone.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

I stand to be corrected but it he is jailed for six months or more h losses his seat ?

 

[Weststander]

He's lucky some kind folk stopped him

I saw a photo of that in the Guardian.

Wanker.