george b

Resident Members
  • Content count

    854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

george b last won the day on March 5

george b had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33 Reputable

1 Follower

About george b

  • Rank
    Regular User
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

214 profile views
  1. the BBC are reporting an incident at the houses of parliament, containing people being mowed down by a car, a PC being stabbed And an asailant being shot, it not at all clear who or why, but looks bad
  2. Chapter 2para 4& 6 amongst others. They relate to indentifying people to whom communication have been sent. Ie you contact list, call records Facebook messenger etc
  3. I think that it was the only way, to make the peace process with people you had distaist for and wait for them to die, so you can move forwards with people who had a less controversial past, . We did it many many times with various persons towards the end of the empire, one minute a terrorist then a president/ prime minister and our best friends
  4. thanks for the reply,, there are as you know a list of offensive weapons per se that does indeed include death stars and knuckleduster's, but not chucks. So its not a simple case of saying it is most definitely an off wep. You would need to prove your case. It's not for the accused to show he has some rice to flail, but for the prosicution to show that his chucks not chucks in general were made designed or adapted to cause harm. For as you state, practise chucks that would only cause light injury if used offensively are not prohibited. Though having hit myself on the head with practise and legal chucks, I can assure you that they hurt quite a lot so.. As he has made designed and addapted these chucks himself for the direct use as a practise tool. It would seem That you would have difficulty showing that he made designed or addapted them to cause serious injury let's take another ancient weapon as comparison. The quarter staff, basically a long thin round length of wood. If he made his own out of a broom handle and was seen twirling it round in the park, you couldnt just say that's off wep and prosicute with out showing his intent in adapting it, is taking the brush of it, was to use it to cause injury
  5. i can't see a court official bribing a pc, to be honest, nor denying him a trial come to that. Though I can see you, sorry him being ejected for kicking off in court contempt of court doesn't require you to enter a plea,nor be put on trial, you show contempt you get punished
  6. the fact the clamp has dvla stamped on it is a fair clue i would think,
  7. well yes it does thats the whole point, you cant search their phone for "data" ie contacts with or with out their permission, with out authorisation from on high. Otherwise you may have pcs wizzing through phones saying " he gave me permission" in order to circumnavigate rippa. . When I had a discussion over if I had been using a Moby whilst driving ( I hadn't) the pc refuse to look at my call logs for this very reason
  8. I'm not sure we are on the same train here? you can access someone phone, remotely or in person, with permission as the provisions of rippa do not apply to you, A pc acting in the course of his duty can not as rippa does apply.
  9. but you mother isnt covered by either the dpa or rippa. The nice pc is and as such he can't search the phone with or with out the drinks permission. And he can't get dpa aurthority. Off someone who can't remember his own house number. If at some point he is turned. Down for a job because the employer does a social media search and finds this, he will be in a position to sue, not least because the pc has attached hos own picture
  10. again, someone so drunk that they dont know where they live can not give informed concent. It doesnt need tp be coverts, he aacessed his Facebook messenger records.
  11. ??the PC released the info to his friends, they ARE the public. That they further distributed the data and only makes the original release worse. As he was so drunk he didn't know where he lived, it seems unlikely he could give informed consent to the release of his data? Consent doesn't allow you to search the phone for contacts etc, just like consent doesn't allow you to search him
  12. he released the info to face book, that data he had collected from the guy,his name, the road he lived on and the fact he was drunk. the release of which is a breach of the dpa Accessing his Facebook account is a breach of ripa
  13. he has accessed his twitter ( or what ever) and released his name most of his addressed and the fact he is drunk to the whole world. there os nothing wrong with accessing data, provided you have the correct aurthority, there is everything wrong with releasing his data.
  14. i thought they may have tagged a charge on of ridding a 90mph moped. That some tune up they have done on that