Ridiculously out of touch judge.

[User removed 4]

but why are you stopping there? isnt car theft an invasion of my property? or are only burglars deserving of a good kicking? does dull old theft or mugging go in to bushy beating law or stay outside? If someone is assualted outside their home, does the aggressor escape a beating? how do you deal with dodgy builders who've worked on your home, when the work goes wrong do you go round for a good shoeing? you're mis-sold a pension/loan/electricity suppy deal by a saleman, can you go and give him a slap?

as ive said before, what part of invasion of home /property are you struggling with ? you're deliberately missing the point.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

but why are you stopping there? isnt car theft an invasion of my property? or are only burglars deserving of a good kicking? does dull old theft or mugging go in to bushy beating law or stay outside? If someone is assualted outside their home, does the aggressor escape a beating? how do you deal with dodgy builders who've worked on your home, when the work goes wrong do you go round for a good shoeing? you're mis-sold a pension/loan/electricity suppy deal by a saleman, can you go and give him a slap?

Because each individual's tolerance and reaction levels are different. In this case we are talking about tying up your family in the process of burgling your house. What would you do?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Let's be clear here, it is the JURY who have made the decision, not the Judge. I did Jury Service last year at Reading Crown Court, and you have to take ONLY the facts that are presented in Court, and not base your decision on any personal agenda that you might have. Regardless of what the burglar did, subjecting someone to GBH in return is not lawful. The defendant should have taken steps to restrain the burglar, and call the police to deal with him, not exact his own form of punishment.

The Judge is duty bound to give the sentence appropriate to the severity of the crime, he has no right to overturn the jury's decision unless he suspects a mis-trial. However there are probably grounds to appeal against the conviction.

 

[bhaexpress]

if my missus is taking it up the arse, i hope hes got a 12 inch cock and no vaseline, as you well klnow my divorce is not finalised yet

Post of the day !

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

but why are you stopping there? isnt car theft an invasion of my property? or are only burglars deserving of a good kicking? does dull old theft or mugging go in to bushy beating law or stay outside? If someone is assualted outside their home, does the aggressor escape a beating? how do you deal with dodgy builders who've worked on your home, when the work goes wrong do you go round for a good shoeing? you're mis-sold a pension/loan/electricity suppy deal by a saleman, can you go and give him a slap?

you must realise by now that 'Bushy World' is a pretty f***ed up place

 

[blue and white army]

I wouldn't blame the judge, blame the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

[User removed 4]

you must realise by now that 'Bushy World' is a pretty f***ed up place

as opposed to the fantasy world where people respond to a slap on the wrist that you inhabit.

 

[thejackal]

"the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society"

I take issue with that assumption.

I have done a lot of research into the 'law' and I can tell you that the criminal justice system is, in fact, a scam designed to separate you from the contents of your wallet.

The 'law' of which they speak are statutes, not laws. Statutes are legal instruments (not the use of the word 'legal' not 'lawful') which are given the force of law by the consent of the governed. Statutes are not Laws!!

The law is the common law, which is the ONLY LAW OF THE LAND. The law of the land is very clear and can be summed up in a few words: "Don't cause anyone harm or loss".

The rest is statutory bullshit, maritime law, UCC, call it what you want, imposed upon you without your choice. You only get to choose which set of corrupt politicians choose the 'laws' that they impose on you.

The proof of this is easy to demonstrate: look at the travelling community. They live outside of our criminal justice system, except in cases where they break common law, not because we allow them too, not 'cos it's too hard to force them to, but because it is their right, and your right also, to live peacefully upon this land, in common law.

The Goverment and their corrupt representatives will go blue in the face trying to convince you that you have to conform, pay taxes, have a driving license, pay parking fines, etc. but it's just a scam. They will threaten you with fines and penalties, but if you know the scam then you know how to insist that the authorities always hear you in common law, and therefore cannot apply their statues to you.

When I found all this out it completely freaked me out. My sister's a lawyer and she couldn't believe it either. But the more I looked into it, the more it became obviously true.

I expect a lot of challenges to this opinion on here, not least because it strikes at the very heart of our belief systems, but I have lots and lots of links to people and organisations that are pushing this info into the public domain.

If you're interested, look here first:

www.tpuc.org | News for positive people

Lawful Rebellion | Stand for what is right.

My only warning is that following this path will completely change the way you look at your life, the law, your government and everything in between!

 

[Simster]

I tend to agree, but it's not the judge's fault. The law states REASONABLE force can be used. Battering them on the way out is not reasonable force so the charge is correct.

I don't agree with it and it needs to change. Hopefully this will trigger something.

I think this is the answer I'd agree with.

The problem with "reasonable force" is that it is not a deterrent to a burgular. There is a perception that the worst that can happen from the burgular's point of view is that he might be chased out of the house with no physical harm.

I don't agree with this "f*** em" attitude that bushy has, any more than the current status quo, but the problem is how do you write law that basically makes it legal to kick the shit out of an intruder while you're in a rage as long as you don't leave them with brain damage?

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

I take issue with that assumption.

I have done a lot of research into the 'law' and I can tell you that the criminal justice system is, in fact, a scam designed to separate you from the contents of your wallet.

The 'law' of which they speak are statutes, not laws. Statutes are legal instruments (not the use of the word 'legal' not 'lawful') which are given the force of law by the consent of the governed.

The law is the common law, which is the ONLY LAW OF THE LAND. The law of the land is very clear and can be summed up in a few words: "Don't cause anyone harm or loss".

The rest is statutory bullshit, maritime law, UCC, call it what you want, imposed upon you without your choice. You only get to choose which set of corrupt politicians choose the 'laws' that they impose on you.

The proof of this is easy to demonstrate: look at the travelling community. They live outside of our criminal justice system, except in cases where they break common law, not because we allow them too, not 'cos it's too hard to force them to, but because it is their right, and your right also, to live peacefully upon this land, in common law.

The Goverment and their corrupt representatives will go blue in the face trying to convince you that you have to conform, pay taxes, have a driving license, pay parking fines, etc. but it's just a scam. They will threaten you with fines and penalties, but if you know the scam then you know how to insist that the authorities always hear you in common law, and therefore cannot apply their statues to you.

When I found all this out it completely freaked me out. My sister's a lawyer and she couldn't beleive it either. But the more I looked into it, the more it became obviously true.

I expect a lot of challenges to this opinion on here, not least because it strikes at the very heart of our belief systems, but I have lots and lots of links to people and organisations that are pushing this info into the public domain.

If you're interested, look here first:

www.tpuc.org | News for positive people

Lawful Rebellion | Stand for what is right.

My only warning is that following this path will completely change the way you look at your life, the law, your government and everything in between!

Can you explain your travellers example a bit more. How do they live outside our criminal justice system?

 

[Titanic]

I take issue with that assumption.

I have done a lot of research into the 'law' ...



My only warning is that following this path will completely change the way you look at your life, the law, your government and everything in between!

Whatever.

 

[Simster]

as opposed to the fantasy world where people respond to a slap on the wrist that you inhabit.

You have to accept that those who disagree with you find the idea of legally maiming someone as abhorrant as the purpetrator being given "a slap on the wrist". It really is that simple.

 

[thejackal]

Can you explain your travellers example a bit more. How do they live outside our criminal justice system?

Yeah, they don't have driving licences, pay road tax, income tax, council tax, have birth certificates, pay any fines, unless they break the common law.

Common law requires there to be another human being, not a representative of the authorities, to have a complaint. So, yes, they end up in court if they steal, harm or lie in their contracts, but not if they don't pay their tv license.

 

[thejackal]

Whatever.

I take it from that, that you are either a lawyer or illiterate?

 

[User removed 4]

You have to accept that those who disagree with you find the idea of legally maiming someone as abhorrant as the purpetrator being given "a slap on the wrist". It really is that simple.

Yet you find it amusing that silvio berlusconi got punched in the face receiving a broken nose and severely lacerated lips ?? 70 odd years old and to quote you " it was frightfully funny", strange standards you've got there .

 

[readingstockport]

and your point is ?? so what, f*** him, if this sort of thing happened more often then i'd bet a pound to a penny that burglary rates would fall.

I think some football hooligans are f***ing wankers and deserve retributive justice before they get the chance to become involved in assaulting people. Do you by any chance know any who I can attack with a baseball bat just in case?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

" The 'law' of which they speak are statutes, not laws. Statutes are legal instruments (not the use of the word 'legal' not 'lawful') which are given the force of law by the consent of the governed. "

Complete drivel, it is the assent of HM The Queen that gives an Act of Parliament the force of law.

In a Crown Court, a Judge sits below a Royal Coat of Arms, and dispenses THE QUEENS justice.

 

[bhaexpress]

you must realise by now that 'Bushy World' is a pretty f***ed up place

Well at least he doesn't fantacise about mythical higher beings.

 

[Scoffers]

Lots of passionate responses!

My point is that the odds always appear too heavily stacked in favour of the offender.

Whatever the crime, the punishments metered out never seem to be a real deterrent.

As in this case, the offender who was smashed around the head had 50 other convictions. Of course I'm not saying that everyone should go around shooting people US style, but surely we need to toughen up. How can these bastards CONTINUALLY get away with it.

I'd wager that in this case, the chap won't be causing any more hurt, and why? because an otherwise law-abiding person did what law-enforcement wasn't prepared to deal with (or wasn't allowed to deal with).

 

[User removed 4]

I think some football hooligans are f***ing wankers and deserve retributive justice before they get the chance to become involved in assaulting people. Do you by any chance know any who I can attack with a baseball bat just in case?

So you're advocating assaulting people who MAY become involved in crime ?hmm strange, have you seen the film minority report ?