On 5/28/2026 at 3:08 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

What is it about nationalism that it atteacks violence t thugs?

Maybe the same thing that attracts thousands of mass rapists and barbaric murdering terrorists to Islam.

n.b. Turn on your spell and grammar checker

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Have you ever heard the expression, "You can indict a ham sandwich"?

I know it came from across the pond, but I imagine it's also true on 2 Tier Kier's side, as well.

A man was beaten to death. The man who, the evidence suggests, did the beating has been charged with murder.

As has been said, such a charge cannot be made without a thorough review of all the evidence, a review which is conducted at a local not national level, and does not involve any political involvement or officers.

I don't think the ham sandwich analogy applies here; particularly as that process inevitably requires significant and lengthy political involvement in the decision and process of charging - "Billy" was arrested and charged soon after the man was killed.

Edited May 30May 30 by JAG

A man was beaten to death. The man who, the evidence suggests, did the beating has been charged with murder.

As has been said, such a charge cannot be made without a thorough review of all the evidence, a review which is conducted at a local not national level, and does not involve any political involvement or officers.

I don't think the ham sandwich analogy applies here; particularly as that process inevitably requires significant and lengthy political involvement in the decision and process of charging - "Billy" was arrested and charged soon after the man was killed.

So, let me ask you...

Who started the dustup? Because the cops don't seem to know. They're asking anyone who knows anything to come forward. (At least that was the state of things when I made my post)

32 minutes ago, impulse said:

So, let me ask you...

Who started the dustup? Because the cops don't seem to know. They're asking anyone who knows anything to come forward. (At least that was the state of things when I made my post)

That is irrelevant. A man was killed. The man who the evidence suggests killed him has been charged. Who or what started the fight, what may or may not have been said, does not excuse or explain the killing.

A defence claiming "self defence" may of course be offered. Whilst that defence may succeed, it is a very high bar; it requires the person accused to have taken every opportunity to avoid the fight, and to have had a reasonable belief that they were in imminent danger of being killed themselves by their opponent. Any intoxication involved removes that defence (the fight was outside a bar in the early hours of the morning).

.

53 minutes ago, impulse said:

So, let me ask you...

Who started the dustup? Because the cops don't seem to know. They're asking anyone who knows anything to come forward. (At least that was the state of things when I made my post)

1 hour ago, JAG said:

A man was beaten to death.

Was he deliberately beaten to death, or was it a punch and he fell over and hit his head, causing death ?

Edited May 30May 30 by Nick Carter icp

21 minutes ago, impulse said:

So, let me ask you...

Who started the dustup? Because the cops don't seem to know. They're asking anyone who knows anything to come forward. (At least that was the state of things when I made my post)

They’re asking for witnesses, which is normal in a murder inquiry.

It wasn’t a ‘dust up’ it’s a murder.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It is, that’s what the trial is for, your ‘two tier’ thing is clearly misinformed nonsense.

The CPS decision to prosecute process is explained in the attached link:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/how-we-make-our-decisions

The CPS can and does bring inappropriate charges and can convince an unsophisticated lower court magistrate to return a conviction. In the UK, Magistrates return a conviction rate of approx 85%. Laying criminal charges can be used as a means of intimidation and of wearing a defendant down. It can be significantly politically motivated and influenced.

The classic example of irresponsible over reach is the 2020 case of CPS UK v. Scottow. The prosecution stemmed from complaints by Stephanie Hayden about messages posted on social media. Ms Hayden is a trans woman, with a public profile as an activist and advocate on transgender rights. Ms. Scottow described herself as a radical feminist, and had views that opposed some of those advocated by Ms Hayden. Ms. Hayden complained about comments that were made many of which "misgendered' her (sic). The police accepted the complaint and referred it to the CPS. A Magistrates' Court, found Scottow guilty under Section (127(2)of the UK's Communications Act 2003 for persistently sending messages for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety.

The judges hearing the appeal were brutal in their quashing of the verdict and criticism of the police and CPS in bringing the charge. A prosecution under s 127(2)(c) for online speech is plainly an interference by the state with the defendant’s Convention right to freedom of expression. The Crown evidently did not appreciate the need to justify the prosecution, but saw it as the defendant’s task to press the free speech argument. The prosecution argument failed entirely to acknowledge the well-established proposition that free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another. The Judge appears to have considered that a criminal conviction was merited for acts of unkindness, and calling others names, and that such acts could only be justified if they made a contribution to a “proper debate”. Neither prosecution nor Judge considered whether some more demanding interpretation of s 127 or addressed the question of what legitimate aim was pursued, or, more importantly, whether the conviction of this defendant on these facts was necessary: whether it was a proportionate means of responding to some pressing social need.

The defendant was harassed for a year and incurred significant financial loss due to the legal pursuit.

https://share.google/hk085Qiojay7tgXxP

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Was he deliberately beaten to death, or was it a punch and he fell over and hit his head, causing death ?

Either way the blow resulted in his death. Hence the charge of murder.

If you want to get "legal" about it the prosecution must establish the "mens rea" (state of mind) of the assailant, and determine that he struck the blow with "malice aforethought" (intent to cause harm to the victim) and was reckless as to whether it could lead to death. It is not necessary for the intention to have been to specifically to kill the victim, merely to have been to cause harm, and or reckless. If recklessness as to the likelihood of causing death cannot be proven the charge may be reduced to manslaughter.

If murder is proved then the mandatory sentence is life imprisonment. The recomendation of the amount of time served before release on licence will be determined by the judge, and will largely depend upon the degree of recklessness, the exact circumstances surrounding the fight itself, and the degree or not of remorse shown.

Edited May 30May 30 by JAG

They’re asking for witnesses, which is normal in a murder inquiry.

It wasn’t a ‘dust up’ it’s a murder.

Once again, I ask: Who started the dustup?

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

Once again, I ask: Who started the dustup?

And once again, it is actually irrelevant to the charge of murder.

And once again, it is actually irrelevant to the charge of murder.

So, hypothetically, if he was attacked in a bar, he has no recourse except to bend over and take the beating?

I don't think that's how it works.

As I explained, if attacked he has under the law, two options: to avoid the attack ( yes run away if you like) or if that is not possible, to react in self defence. The tests of " mens rea" and recklessness still apply. As it took place outside a bar, in the early hours then it is likely that escape was possible, and intoxication was very possible.

Edited May 30May 30 by JAG

As I explained, if attacked he has under the law, two options: to avoid the attack ( yes run away if you like) or if that is not possible, to react in self defence.

There it is... If it was a 2 on one dustup, he's actually allowed to defend himself, eh?

According to other news sources, the guy who died owns the bar. Why was he outside? Curious minds want to know...

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

The CPS can and does bring inappropriate charges and can convince an unsophisticated lower court magistrate to return a conviction. In the UK, Magistrates return a conviction rate of approx 85%. Laying criminal charges can be used as a means of intimidation and of wearing a defendant down. It can be significantly politically motivated and influenced.

The classic example of irresponsible over reach is the 2020 case of CPS UK v. Scottow. The prosecution stemmed from complaints by Stephanie Hayden about messages posted on social media. Ms Hayden is a trans woman, with a public profile as an activist and advocate on transgender rights. Ms. Scottow described herself as a radical feminist, and had views that opposed some of those advocated by Ms Hayden. Ms. Hayden complained about comments that were made many of which "misgendered' her (sic). The police accepted the complaint and referred it to the CPS. A Magistrates' Court, found Scottow guilty under Section (127(2)of the UK's Communications Act 2003 for persistently sending messages for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety.

The judges hearing the appeal were brutal in their quashing of the verdict and criticism of the police and CPS in bringing the charge. A prosecution under s 127(2)(c) for online speech is plainly an interference by the state with the defendant’s Convention right to freedom of expression. The Crown evidently did not appreciate the need to justify the prosecution, but saw it as the defendant’s task to press the free speech argument. The prosecution argument failed entirely to acknowledge the well-established proposition that free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another. The Judge appears to have considered that a criminal conviction was merited for acts of unkindness, and calling others names, and that such acts could only be justified if they made a contribution to a “proper debate”. Neither prosecution nor Judge considered whether some more demanding interpretation of s 127 or addressed the question of what legitimate aim was pursued, or, more importantly, whether the conviction of this defendant on these facts was necessary: whether it was a proportionate means of responding to some pressing social need.

The defendant was harassed for a year and incurred significant financial loss due to the legal pursuit.

https://share.google/hk085Qiojay7tgXxP

The killer is charged with murder, he will be tried at Crown Court, not by magistrates and not by your imagined ‘unsophisticated’ courts.

He will be represented by a KC and will be tried before a jury.

40 minutes ago, impulse said:

Once again, I ask: Who started the dustup?

It was t a dust up.

It was t a dust up.

What do you call it when 3 guys duke it out?

31 minutes ago, impulse said:

So, hypothetically, if he was attacked in a bar, he has no recourse except to bend over and take the beating?

I don't think that's how it works.

That’s not how it works.

The right to self defense exists in UK law, the right to commit murder does not.

3 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Maybe the same thing that attracts thousands of mass rapists and barbaric murdering terrorists to Islam.

n.b. Turn on your spell and grammar checker

Turn off your Islamophobia trigger.

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

What do you call it when 3 guys duke it out?

In this case I call it an imagined scenario.

56 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Turn off your Islamophobia trigger.

I do not have an Islamophobia trigger. I do however have a healthy fear and distrust of Islam, but it is based entirely on clear logical thinking, analytical research and a comprehensive knowledge of the thousands upon thousands of Islamic terrorist atrocities in modern history; nothing to do with a phobia whatsoever. 

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

There it is... If it was a 2 on one dustup, he's actually allowed to defend himself, eh?

According to other news sources, the guy who died owns the bar. Why was he outside? Curious minds want to know...

Oh dear, you are building a hypothetical defence based upon one phrase from a much longer and complex post.

Until the case comes to trial and if he pleads not guilty and his defence lawyers produce their case we simply will not know. I am sure that his defence team will be aware of the two tests which have to be passed to establish "self defence"; a genuine attempt to avoid the fight in the first place, and second using reasonable force in self defence without being reckless. Add in the possibility of intoxication. If any of these points cannot be established then self defence fails. Self defence is an "absolute defence", so if it fails ony any of those three grounds the whole defence fails as do any subsequent attempts to establish mitigating circumstances; with a consequent effect upon sentencing considerations. Put bluntly what might be a life sentence with perhaps as little as 15 years served (often less and in comparatively easy circumstances) could turn into 25 years or more in higher category prisons. It is a grave gamble to take.

That is why "self defence" is so rarely used, or is successful in cases involving murder or violent affray.

I am sure that his legal team will consider that.

Edited May 30May 30 by JAG

1 hour ago, impulse said:

What do you call it when 3 guys duke it out?

The law would regard it as violent affray. If it results in the death of one participant as here, it becomes murder.

Lichfield is not the Wild West!

Edited May 30May 30 by JAG

20 minutes ago, JAG said:

The law would regard it as violent affray. If it results in the death of one participant as here, it becomes murder.

And who "dukes things out" anyway? It is not 1900.

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

And who "dukes things out" anyway? It is not 1900.

Possibly in the flagshagging universe?

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

Possibly in the flagshagging universe?

Ah yes, the uber religious, Christianity loving (but have never been to church or within 10 metres of a Bible), flag shagging, lamp post climbing, street pissers do love a good duking out.

8 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I do not have an Islamophobia trigger. I do however have a healthy fear and distrust of Islam, but it is based entirely on clear logical thinking, analytical research and a comprehensive knowledge of the thousands upon thousands of Islamic terrorist atrocities in modern history; nothing to do with a phobia whatsoever. 

 

So not triggered to bang on about Muslims and Islam in a thread discussing neither?!

Starmer's cronies in the CPS will do everything possible to fast track this one, because the accused is right wing (lefties claim that right wingers are the biggest terror threat to UK citizens 🙄)

Let's see how long this takes to get to court / conviction compared to the Manchester Airport attackers, where everything they did was filmed.

Thanks for highlighting this case Chomper, so we can watch the 2 tier justice system in action again.

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Starmer's cronies in the CPS will do everything possible to fast track this one, because the accused is right wing (lefties claim that right wingers are the biggest terror threat to UK citizens 🙄)

Let's see how long this takes to get to court / conviction compared to the Manchester Airport attackers, where everything they did was filmed.

Thanks for highlighting this case Chomper, so we can watch the 2 tier justice system in action again.

You do know the difference between pleading guilty and not, right? People who plead guilty (for example for inciting racial hatred) can be sentenced immediately, whereas people who plead not guilty need to have a criminal trial and that takes time.

You do know that, right?

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Let's see how long this takes to get to court / conviction compared to the Manchester Airport attackers, where everything they did was filmed.

Next court date is October I believe.

13 hours ago, JAG said:

As I explained, if attacked he has under the law, two options: to avoid the attack ( yes run away if you like) or if that is not possible, to react in self defence. The tests of " mens rea" and recklessness still apply. As it took place outside a bar, in the early hours then it is likely that escape was possible, and intoxication was very possible.

Possibility does not mean proven beyond reasonable doubt. Your arguments are valid for civil liability, but do not support the burden of proof requirement for a criminal pursuit.