CharlieT Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said: Those are all fair and reasonable reasons for the action shown in the video. Was it you in the video? Wondering as you said "what's what I did." If so good luck. I would expect you will have to justify your actions if so. No, it wasn't me. I was a couple of vehicles back, but had the same reception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 7 hours ago, Gordon R said: According to 12gauge82 - you would be guilty. I presume he means guilty under As this deals with the conduct of the Police and gathering evidence, I'm unclear as to just how that works, but I'm sure he is right. I believe the car driver went out of his way to cause as little harm as possible. He could have been far heavier with his right foot. Well i think ive got more than a clue bit we'll have to agree to disagree on that point ?. I included that section as it is stated in my earlier quote one of the main bits of legislation covering use of force in England and Wales, I'm not saying it's relevant in this case. With regards the car driving through the sabs, that is an assault, once you've committed assault the onus is on you to prove that it was justified, legally known as a premtive strike, I've posted this as I wouldn't want to see anyone come unstuck and is to the best of my knowledge correct, I've also seen you post nothing that has changed my opinion of that. I've also stated all the way through that's not to say I don't think the driver was justified in what they did, a quick video clip with no surrouding stories, no witness statemets, no sound and the accused not here to put his side across (everyone percieves threat differently) not to mention the lack of a court and due process is never going to end in a fair trial. If you want to ignore what I've said that's totally up to you and bothers me not one bit. We're all responsible for our own actions though I would suggest driving a car at someone is not to be taken lightly! I'll leave this here as I do not want to derail the thread. Been an interesting debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromwell7 Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, Walker570 said: Pre-emptive Edited November 30, 2017 by cromwell7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 12gauge82 - happy to leave it there as you are just a bit out of your depth. You cite PACE, which has absolutely nothing to do with this case and Common Law (bit of a sweeping reference there). You don't understand the concept of assault - nor "premtive" - whatever that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendrix's rifle Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Think I'd go with the majority and keep driving through them. No point stopping because all that would happen is things would escalate further Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Just read all the posts then watched the video 4 times, its a very short clip showing nothing before or after, there clearly blocking the road, the car stops he doesn't plow into them, then he drives on forcing his way through, I don't see anything wrong with the drivers actions, they were happy to stand in the road looking for a reaction as they filmed it, Muppets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ips Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 thing is we only see what the pillocks I mean antis want us to see, I would think masked men deliberately blocking your way would be somewhat scarey for anyone (man or woman) In my opinion anyone in any "public" situation who covers there face for no reason other than anonymity should be prosecuted for something (I don't know what but something) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted November 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 25 minutes ago, ips said: thing is we only see what the pillocks I mean antis want us to see, I would think masked men deliberately blocking your way would be somewhat scarey for anyone (man or woman) In my opinion anyone in any "public" situation who covers there face for no reason other than anonymity should be prosecuted for something (I don't know what but something) Can't argue with that. The problem is is that with further cuts to police funding likely then their presence in rural locations is going to be further eroded and the situation will deteriorate even more. I think the words I'm looking for are 'rural anarchy'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Hendrix's rifle said: Think I'd go with the majority and keep driving through them. No point stopping because all that would happen is things would escalate further Have to agree, the mention of ammonia in a previous post would keep me driving on regardless. If they did that to the first car in a narrow lane all the rest are held up & off it goes. Quote An aquaintance stopped for terrorists,( because thats what they are) and tried to reason with them. She got ammonia thrown in her face for her pains. I won't stop for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mice! said: Just read all the posts then watched the video 4 times, its a very short clip showing nothing before or after, there clearly blocking the road, the car stops he doesn't plow into them, then he drives on forcing his way through, I don't see anything wrong with the drivers actions, they were happy to stand in the road looking for a reaction as they filmed it, Muppets. Good point! The driver, going about his/her lawful business, stopped because she/he was forced to! There was no choice, these people were deliberately and unlawfully blocking the road, whilst dressed in a fashion and acting in a manner intended to intimidate, instil fear and cause alarm....is this not conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace? As the vehicle approached, these people had apparantly determined they would not move out of the way and continued to unlawfully block the carriageway (as shown on their own footage) In concern for personal safety, that of any passengers, and to avoid likely damage to and theft of property, it was entirely proportionate and reasonable that the driver moved the people who were unlawfully blocking the carriageway, out of the way using the vehicle.....what other choice had the driver got? I agree that dash cams/camcorders are a good idea..............turn the tables on these people! Edited November 30, 2017 by panoma1 Correcting predictive text mistakes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ips Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 they are mindless thugs jumping on the bandwagon of whatever the latest protest is in vogue. If it wasn't hunting it would be wherever the latest by-pass is. Flamin tree huggers have nothing better to do and the fact that they hide quite literally behind a mask proves they have no conviction for there so called cause ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 hour ago, ips said: thing is we only see what the pillocks I mean antis want us to see. Exactly this, and I had asked earlier in tbis thread, do the hunt have body cams dash cams? Go pro's etc.. Need to film them aswell... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ips Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said: Exactly this, and I had asked earlier in tbis thread, do the hunt have body cams dash cams? Go pro's etc.. Need to film them aswell... that would be a sound idea and I suspect would show these thugs in there true colours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted November 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said: Exactly this, and I had asked earlier in tbis thread, do the hunt have body cams dash cams? Go pro's etc.. Need to film them aswell... Sensible post, but couldn't stop the thought of the headlines in the Daily Grot jumping to mind: 'Shoot Out At Ashcombe Bottom' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 23 minutes ago, wymberley said: Sensible post, but couldn't stop the thought of the headlines in the Daily Grot jumping to mind: 'Shoot Out At Ashcombe Bottom' Know what you mean, but they may be put off if the hunt are recording what they do.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoozer Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) On 29/11/2017 at 12:39, CharlieT said: It wasn't anything. The intimidation started long before hounds were unboxed. And although it would have been legal hunting that would have taken place, the hunt decided not to even start, let alone move off from the meet. Just wondered what was the intended quarry if the hunt had taken place ? Edited November 30, 2017 by Snoozer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 Probably a drag hunt, but the antis see this as just a cover screen, there still not happy that folk have carried on "hunting" even though a lot of hunts have gone. as for filming the antis I'm sure I've seen that some hunts do do this, having hunt servants filming the filmers if that makes sense. The idea of dash cams certainly seems like a good idea, if these actions are common place then the hunt fraternity should be using them as standard, I'm still amazed this sort of thing hasn't happened to the shooting industry yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzicat Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 20 hours ago, Lloyd90 said: He could have reversed and called the Police for assistance. He could have stop and waiting in his car - if they started to attempt to smash the window or something then MAYBE they could claim it was reasonable. The whole point of REASONABLE force is that it’s the MINIMAL amount of force needed. Driving backwards away from the ‘threat’ when the road is clear is much more minimal that driving towards them and attempting to knock them over. Let’s wait and see what the Police and Court decide ... Difficult with a sheep trailer in tow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ips Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 And what happens if you run over one of the pillocks whilst reversing. Imo the driver was trying to get away rom the situation without causing injury otherwise he or she would have floored it with a bit of lock on in case the pillock attempted to side step. In that situation I would have done the same but sent the pilock an invoice for the paintwork damage to my bonnet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB1 Posted November 30, 2017 Report Share Posted November 30, 2017 The Sabs are just as guilty as the BBC twerps that gave it air time to stir up yet another PC ****storm. In my day the Police would have turned up and slapped the stupid ******* Save a fox, save a badger etc…… they ought to to look at themselves and spare a thought for the little shoeless poor kids that pick their cannabis every day for a pittance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.