Two men charged over poppy burning protest in London

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by NotmeChief, Dec 14, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11987236

    Only a petty charge but better than nothing.
     
  2. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    What is / are the charges? Your link only tells under which Act they have been charged.
     
  3. Looking at it, the section mentioned in the article refers to the crime of "Violent Disorder"... so I'm guessing that's the charge.
     
  4. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

  5. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Would you have reported such an incident if it did not involve people of ethnic origin, NMC? And anyway, the suspects have only been charged and bailed to appear, so are still innocent in the eyes of the law - only when/if they receive a conviction will I give the impression that I give a damn about this story... :roll:
     
  6. One was under the impression that there is evidential guilt and legal guilt.
     
  7. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    ...to be decided by the Courts, rather than public opinion.
     
  8. But wouldn't public opinion give them the punishment they so richly deserve, instead of the pinko judiciary who would give them a slap on the wrist, a holiday in Antigua, and oodles of compo for a breach of their human rights ??

    :?
     
  9. Legal guilt as undertaken by a court of law.
    Evidential guilt as shown by a video
     
  10. I would assume NMC reported this story as it follows on from a previous thread originated by RO2weiler on 17th Nov. Fk'all to do with ethnicity, just continuity that some of us might find interesting. :roll:
     
  11. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Rules of Evidence: The evidential value is only appropriate if the exhibit has been seized/obtained and presented to Court during the course of the investigation, rather than posted on a filesharing website, in order to prove the validity and continuity of the exhibit in question. Once the exhibit has been produced and sworn in for the purpose of the Court can its true evidential value be ascertained, evaluated and used to prove or disprove the suspect(s)' involvement in the alleged incident.
     
  12. Ok...charges, trial, conviction, appeal, conviction upheld....

    Then fer fecks sake, can we stone them? Make them feel right at home! Nothing should be too good for our home grown feckwits....

    :D
     
  13. On a similar theme, I recently watched a video of a Moslem defending his religion by saying that they haven't stoned anyone since the 7th Century.
    I always knew the people behind Islam were clever, but to actually have a video camera to record a stoning event and to then keep that recording safe until some Westerner Kuffar created YouTube, so it could be broadcast, was a blinding stroke of genius.
    :roll:
     

Share This Page