Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Well At Least It's A Start.
66 Answers
https:/
But if the police know of these gangs why doesn't the government mask it illegal to be a member of certain gangs?
But if the police know of these gangs why doesn't the government mask it illegal to be a member of certain gangs?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy-hughes
/// I don't think the police can grab a suspected gang member, find his membership card in his pocket and tear it up, with a stiff telling-off as well - do you? ///
Well it seems to be working with such groups as the far-right group National Action, but when proven to be member they are not given a 'stiff telling off', they are slammed in jail.
It is so surprising that so many defend these drug dealing killers.
/// I don't think the police can grab a suspected gang member, find his membership card in his pocket and tear it up, with a stiff telling-off as well - do you? ///
Well it seems to be working with such groups as the far-right group National Action, but when proven to be member they are not given a 'stiff telling off', they are slammed in jail.
It is so surprising that so many defend these drug dealing killers.
AOG - // Well it seems to be working with such groups as the far-right group National Action, but when proven to be member they are not given a 'stiff telling off', they are slammed in jail. //
There is a world of difference between a quasi-official organisation such as National Action, which probably does have a traceable and provable membership structure, and a group of disaffected teengers who bond together to try and find some semblance of order and belonging in their lives.
// It is so surprising that so many defend these drug dealing killers. //
Who does that, and where do they do it?
There is a world of difference between a quasi-official organisation such as National Action, which probably does have a traceable and provable membership structure, and a group of disaffected teengers who bond together to try and find some semblance of order and belonging in their lives.
// It is so surprising that so many defend these drug dealing killers. //
Who does that, and where do they do it?
Perhaps this law should be re-established. It was only abolished 32 yrs ago. Looks like our Law Lords jumped the gun in hindsight. Bit of tweaking and it would fit the purpose.
United Kingdom[edit]
By the 19th century, unlawful assembly was the term used in English law for an assembly of three or more persons with intent to commit a crime by force, or to carry out a common purpose (whether lawful or unlawful), in such a manner or in such circumstances as would in the opinion of firm and rational men endanger the public peace or create fear of immediate danger to the tranquillity of the neighbourhood. In the Year Book of the third year of Henry VII's reign assemblies were referred to as not punishable unless in terrorem populi domini regis. It was suggested[a] that legislation first became necessary at a time when it was usual for those landed proprietors who were on bad terms with one another to go to market at the head of bands of armed retainers.[b] An assembly, otherwise lawful, was not made unlawful if those who take part in it know beforehand that there will probably be organized opposition to it, and that it may cause a breach of the peace.[c] All persons may, and must if called upon to do so, assist in dispersing an unlawful assembly.[d] An assembly which was lawful could not be rendered unlawful by proclamation unless the proclamation was one authorized by statute.[e] Meetings for training or drilling, or military movements, were unlawful assemblies unless held under lawful authority from the Crown, the Lord Lieutenant, or two justices of the peace.[f]
An unlawful assembly which has made a motion towards its common purpose was termed a rout, and if the unlawful assembly should proceed to carry out its purpose, e.g. begin to demolish a particular enclosure, it became a riot. All three offences were misdemeanours in English law, punishable by fine and imprisonment. The offence was abolished by the Public Order Act 1986.
The common law as to unlawful assembly extended to Ireland, subject to special legislation. The law of Scotland included unlawful assembly under the same head as rioting.[1]
United Kingdom[edit]
By the 19th century, unlawful assembly was the term used in English law for an assembly of three or more persons with intent to commit a crime by force, or to carry out a common purpose (whether lawful or unlawful), in such a manner or in such circumstances as would in the opinion of firm and rational men endanger the public peace or create fear of immediate danger to the tranquillity of the neighbourhood. In the Year Book of the third year of Henry VII's reign assemblies were referred to as not punishable unless in terrorem populi domini regis. It was suggested[a] that legislation first became necessary at a time when it was usual for those landed proprietors who were on bad terms with one another to go to market at the head of bands of armed retainers.[b] An assembly, otherwise lawful, was not made unlawful if those who take part in it know beforehand that there will probably be organized opposition to it, and that it may cause a breach of the peace.[c] All persons may, and must if called upon to do so, assist in dispersing an unlawful assembly.[d] An assembly which was lawful could not be rendered unlawful by proclamation unless the proclamation was one authorized by statute.[e] Meetings for training or drilling, or military movements, were unlawful assemblies unless held under lawful authority from the Crown, the Lord Lieutenant, or two justices of the peace.[f]
An unlawful assembly which has made a motion towards its common purpose was termed a rout, and if the unlawful assembly should proceed to carry out its purpose, e.g. begin to demolish a particular enclosure, it became a riot. All three offences were misdemeanours in English law, punishable by fine and imprisonment. The offence was abolished by the Public Order Act 1986.
The common law as to unlawful assembly extended to Ireland, subject to special legislation. The law of Scotland included unlawful assembly under the same head as rioting.[1]
Zacs-Master
I cannot be held responsible for the colour of their skin, no more than I or others can for showing their concerns over the religion of the child abducting gangs.
If and when such widespread vicious crimes are carried out by whites on such a wide scale and then reported by the news media then I or others I am sure, will be enter a news thread on them.
I cannot be held responsible for the colour of their skin, no more than I or others can for showing their concerns over the religion of the child abducting gangs.
If and when such widespread vicious crimes are carried out by whites on such a wide scale and then reported by the news media then I or others I am sure, will be enter a news thread on them.
Zacs-Master
/// He’s been told several times why they’re difficult to police (he knows it’s because they are black but he’s too disingenuous to mention it first himself, preferring to let someone’s else make the first move, thinking this gives him the moral high ground). ///
So you are admitting it's because they are black, good job I didn't say that or I would have been called a racist.
Good job, I am too disingenuous to mention it myself. lmao.
/// He’s been told several times why they’re difficult to police (he knows it’s because they are black but he’s too disingenuous to mention it first himself, preferring to let someone’s else make the first move, thinking this gives him the moral high ground). ///
So you are admitting it's because they are black, good job I didn't say that or I would have been called a racist.
Good job, I am too disingenuous to mention it myself. lmao.
Quite often I simply repeat what you’ve said or what you’re notorious for saying on here AOG so they’re not my words. Do you remember when you couldn’t get your head around crime arrest statistics and black crime figures? That was a good one.
https:/
https:/
AOG - // andy-hughes
/// Who does that, and where do they do it? ///
You just did, at it is here:
/// and a group of disaffected teengers who bond together to try and find some semblance of order and belonging in their lives. ///
Not for the first time, you confuse a (possible) explanation with a defence, clearly you don't understand the difference.
For example - if I say that the Holocaust was seen as a practical way of diminishing the population of Jews in Europe, I would say that was a (possible) explanation, you would see it as me defending the actions of the Nazis.
Your need to ignore what is being clearly expressed, and turn it into something which it is clearly not intended to be, is as offensive as it is predictable.
I know you want to see me as a 'defender' or black gangs, Islamists, or whoever else irks you on the day, so that you can criticise me for it, but the truth is, I am not, and your twisting and deliberately misinterpreting is not going to change that.
/// Who does that, and where do they do it? ///
You just did, at it is here:
/// and a group of disaffected teengers who bond together to try and find some semblance of order and belonging in their lives. ///
Not for the first time, you confuse a (possible) explanation with a defence, clearly you don't understand the difference.
For example - if I say that the Holocaust was seen as a practical way of diminishing the population of Jews in Europe, I would say that was a (possible) explanation, you would see it as me defending the actions of the Nazis.
Your need to ignore what is being clearly expressed, and turn it into something which it is clearly not intended to be, is as offensive as it is predictable.
I know you want to see me as a 'defender' or black gangs, Islamists, or whoever else irks you on the day, so that you can criticise me for it, but the truth is, I am not, and your twisting and deliberately misinterpreting is not going to change that.
andy-hughes
Fine words but perhaps if you didn't write thus:
/// and a group of disaffected teengers who bond together to try and find some semblance of order and belonging in their lives. ///
Perhaps I would not be confused into thinking that this isn't a condemnation of such deeds, but merely a feeble excuse for their criminal behaviour.
Fine words but perhaps if you didn't write thus:
/// and a group of disaffected teengers who bond together to try and find some semblance of order and belonging in their lives. ///
Perhaps I would not be confused into thinking that this isn't a condemnation of such deeds, but merely a feeble excuse for their criminal behaviour.
andy-hughes
/// Your need to ignore what is being clearly expressed, and turn it into something which it is clearly not intended to be, is as offensive as it is predictable. ///
I know from old that you take offence at being challenged by anyone, but I think that you are taking it a bit far by accusing me of being offensive in this case.
/// Your need to ignore what is being clearly expressed, and turn it into something which it is clearly not intended to be, is as offensive as it is predictable. ///
I know from old that you take offence at being challenged by anyone, but I think that you are taking it a bit far by accusing me of being offensive in this case.
Nothing to worry about folks, it's just a group of disaffected teenagers who wish to bond together in an attempt to find some semblance of order and belonging in their lives.
Others would say that they are a bunch of drug running murderous thugs, out to make vast amounts of money all at the expense of those amongst us who wish to walk the streets in safety and who obtain their cash by working legally, five or more days a week.
Others would say that they are a bunch of drug running murderous thugs, out to make vast amounts of money all at the expense of those amongst us who wish to walk the streets in safety and who obtain their cash by working legally, five or more days a week.
AOG - // Perhaps I would not be confused into thinking that this isn't a condemnation of such deeds, but merely a feeble excuse for their criminal behaviour. //
As I have already pointed out, you an incapable of understanding that an explanation and a defence are not the same thing.
Similarly, you fail to register anyone's objection to criminal behaviour unless it is couched in terms similar to the florid language you use as a matter of course.
Allow me to spell it out for you - again - just because I don't jump up and down and turn purple in print, and offer an explanation that in no way defends behaviour, does not mean that I find such behaviour acceptable.
Hopefully you will now grasp the concept that a little detached analysis as opposed to thrombosis-inducing invective is simply another viewpoint, and not automatically and knee-jerkingly opposed to yours, as you so constantly believe.
As I have already pointed out, you an incapable of understanding that an explanation and a defence are not the same thing.
Similarly, you fail to register anyone's objection to criminal behaviour unless it is couched in terms similar to the florid language you use as a matter of course.
Allow me to spell it out for you - again - just because I don't jump up and down and turn purple in print, and offer an explanation that in no way defends behaviour, does not mean that I find such behaviour acceptable.
Hopefully you will now grasp the concept that a little detached analysis as opposed to thrombosis-inducing invective is simply another viewpoint, and not automatically and knee-jerkingly opposed to yours, as you so constantly believe.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
Film, Media & TV14 mins ago
News14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
