British Justice!!!
- Thread starter msharron
- Start date
Actually this is good because under the previous Labour government that kid could have sued the guy for assault. It happened. Thankfully the law was changed to allow people to use reasonable force in their own homes to defend themselves.
You have always been able to use reasonable force if.....
If you apprehend immediate harm to yourself and or others or property.
A court is then supposed to assess:
i) was it reasonable.
ii) was it proportionate.
If these conditions are met one is not guilty of an offence.
If you apprehend immediate harm to yourself and or others or property.
A court is then supposed to assess:
i) was it reasonable.
ii) was it proportionate.
If these conditions are met one is not guilty of an offence.
Not sure why you mentioned Labour, was it different under the previous tory gov?
dig a little deeper on the chap mentioned in the article, and he was cautioned for Level 1 which is:
Level one porn: Definition: Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures of children playing in normal settings.
Because since 1997 the UK has gone down the khazi, that's why. It's no wonder Blair ended the treason law.
As this sounded curious, I dug a bit for more info:
Here is the scale:
1 Indicative
Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.
(bolding by me)
Source:COPINE scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What does this mean?
In terms WF might understand:
Pictures of dudes playing beach volleyball topless
BUT
in a folder titled "Guys I would love to fuck"
While the imagery might be innocent, the context isn't
::emp::