Good News - 2 charged over Poppy Burning protest

[Dedworth]

Two men have been charged in connection with a protest during Armistice Day in west London.

A model of a poppy was burned in a demonstration in Kensington during the two-minute silence held to mark Armistice Day on 11 November.

Mohammed Haque, 30, and Amdadur Choudhury, 26, were charged under section two of the Public Order Act.

The men are due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 22 December, the Metropolitan Police said.

The addresses of the men were not disclosed by the court.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...twitter#london

[KeithD]

Now sentence them to 3 months in tha Army....... bomb squad

[joebloggs]

...... bomb squad

disposal

[Arthur Little]

The men are due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 22 December, the Metropolitan Police said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...twitter#london

... WHY waste time and public money on court appearances?? ... Deport the buggers!!

[Dedworth]

... WHY waste time and public money on court appearances?? ... Deport the buggers!!

Arthur - You will probably find they are British born - the enemy within

[Arthur Little]

Arthur - You will probably find they are British born - the enemy within

... and we must be seen to be "politically correct" at all costs!!!

[johncar54]

It will be interesting to see if a conviction is secured and what the sentence will be if convicted.

Violent Disorder

(Archbold 29-10 to 29-16)

An offence under section 2 is triable either way. It is difficult to see circumstances in which it would be appropriate to represent that charges brought under section 2 would be suitable for summary disposition. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is five years' imprisonment and/or a fine of unlimited amount. On summary conviction the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding level 5.

Under section 2 of the Act, it must be proved that:

* three or more persons
* present together
* used or threatened
* unlawful violence
* so that the conduct of them (taken together) would cause
* a person of reasonable firmness
* present at the scene
* to fear for his or her personal safety.

[Englishman2010]

I think this is just a publicity stunt by the Home Office/Ministry of Justice and CPS to look good in front on an increasingly angry public.

Just wait and see...nothing will come of it, after £millions have been wasted, the case will either be thrown out on a technicality before it goes to trial or the left wing Beak in the chair will fine them £25 and tell them not to do it again.

[purple]

... WHY waste time and public money on court appearances?? ... Deport the buggers!!

I agree....

[Dedworth]

It will be interesting to see if a conviction is secured and what the sentence will be if convicted.

Violent Disorder

(Archbold 29-10 to 29-16)

An offence under section 2 is triable either way. It is difficult to see circumstances in which it would be appropriate to represent that charges brought under section 2 would be suitable for summary disposition. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is five years' imprisonment and/or a fine of unlimited amount. On summary conviction the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding level 5.

Under section 2 of the Act, it must be proved that:

* three or more persons
* present together
* used or threatened
* unlawful violence
* so that the conduct of them (taken together) would cause
* a person of reasonable firmness
* present at the scene
* to fear for his or her personal safety.

Let's just remind ourselves of one of the many misconcieved posts you made a few weeks ago in the Insult to Decency thread :-

Dedworth what law did they break by burning the poppies. Nothing springs immediately to me. If they did not then the police have nothing to do.

[bornatbirth]

A model of a poppy was burned in a demonstration in Kensington during the two-minute silence held to mark Armistice Day on 11 November.

is it a real poppy or a model poppy because if they burnt a model poppy they didnt burn a real poppy, so what law did they break

[johncar54]

is it a real poppy or a model poppy because if they burnt a model poppy they didnt burn a real poppy, so what law did they break

There is no offence per se of burning a poppy.

If one damaged property belong to another then the offence is criminal damage.

In this case the charge relates to section 2 offence not criminal damage. Please read the quote I posted for what is required to secure a conviction. It is too difficult to explain, in layman's terms, here.

[Arthur Little]

is it a real poppy or a model poppy because if they burnt a model poppy they didnt burn a real poppy, so what law did they break

It's the SIGNIFICANCE of what they did that counts ... i.e., insulting the memory of our war dead!

[johncar54]

It's the SIGNIFICANCE of what they did that counts ... i.e., insulting the memory of our war dead!

Sorry to keep on repeating this but it seems to have been misunderstood.

Insulting our dead is not a criminal offence, as distasteful and disgusting we may believe it to be.

In this case it that , in doing so, they also did, all of these:-

* three or more persons
* present together
* used or threatened
* unlawful violence
* so that the conduct of them (taken together) would cause
* a person of reasonable firmness
* present at the scene
* to fear for his or her personal safety.

Thus a section 2 offence, and that is what they have been charged with. If the prosecution cannot prove all these points, it appears, that a conviction will not be obtained.

[bornatbirth]

you should stop trying to convince others what the law states what is a crime and how hard it is to get a conviction because no matter what you post sadly it will be wrong

[Arthur Little]

Sorry to keep on repeating this but it seems to have been misunderstood.

Insulting our dead is not a criminal offence, as distasteful and disgusting we may believe it to be.

In this case it that , in doing so, they also did, all of these:-

* three or more persons
* present together
* used or threatened
* unlawful violence
* so that the conduct of them (taken together) would cause
* a person of reasonable firmness
* present at the scene
* to fear for his or her personal safety.

Thus a section 2 offence, and that is what they have been charged with. If the prosecution cannot prove all these points, it appears, that a conviction will not be obtained.

In that case, hopefully they can be charged with 'inciting civil unrest' ... which surely constitutes an offence at the very least!

[johncar54]

you should stop trying to convince others what the law states what is a crime and how hard it is to get a conviction because no matter what you post sadly it will be wrong

I have removed my post which was based on my misundertanding of Bornatbirth's post

[johncar54]

In that case, hopefully they can be charged with ... which surely consitutes an offence at the very least!

But, isn't that in effect what they have been charged with ?

Whilst it maybe that a charge 'inciting civil unrest' could be brought under Common Law, I don't think such an offence is known to UK Statute Law, but I won't take bets on it!

However, it is standard practice to not bring Common Law charges where there are adequate Staute Law offences.

[bornatbirth]

john, i agree with you, your getting the wrong end of the stick, what i meant was..whatever you post trying to convince others it will fall on deaf ears.

[johncar54]

john, i agree with you, your getting the wrong end of the stick, what i meant was..whatever you post trying to convince others it will fall on deaf ears.

Profound apologies to you, I have removed my comment.

[Arthur Little]

OK ... say, for the sake of argument, I were to walk into a British pub and *light up a cigarette. I'd be rendering myself liable to prosecution for contravening the 'Ban on Smoking in Public Places Regulations' and could - indeed would [no question!] - face an automatic, hefty fine ... as too, would the owner(s) if he/she/they permitted me to *do so!!

Conversely ... any legal proceedings involving the hooligans who committed atrocities deliberately designed to provoke public outrage - by breaching the bounds of moral decency - are likely to be long and drawn out - doubtless at great expense - and (in keeping with our "well-earned" reputation for being a "Nanny State") will most likely result in an acquittal! Tell me ... where's the justice there ...?

[johncar54]

Arthur I thought you had been around long enough to know justice, as many of us perceive it, does not exist.

[Arthur Little]

Arthur I thought you had been around long enough to know justice, as many of us perceive it, does not exist.

Sometimes I feel I've been around too long, John! But seriously ... I often wonder what the world's coming to ... and truly despair for future generations!!

[Dedworth]

I missed this on 22 December - they are back in court tomorrow 12 Jan . Just for the benefit of certain list members the CPS seem to be basing the case on

"They burned poppies on Armistice Day, it is as straightforward as that.

"Our case is that they did cause alarm and distress to the persons that witnessed this."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12064061