Wasn't it marge Simpson who said "shoot em all and let god sort em out" which, if I'm not mistaken, is the gist of what your saying.
Regards Wayne Sent from my iPhone On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:55, "Chris Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote: Why shouldn't someone take offence just because they are called a c**t How does the court know that this is a 'one time offender', Before anyone asks I am not a Solicitor. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Walker" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:25 AM To: "'Sean Emmott'" <[email protected]>; "'Terry Emmott'" <[email protected]>; "Mark Humphries" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "'Ted'" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LU] At last we are top of the league............ This is a complete joke. We've got 152 banning orders - the police love to publish these figures in an attempt to justify their presence at football matches , yet when you look at why people are really banned it makes a mockery of the whole process. --- On Fri, 27/2/09, Mark Humphries <[email protected]> wrote: From: Mark Humphries <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LU] At last we are top of the league............ To: "'Sean Emmott'" <[email protected]>, "'Terry Emmott'" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], "'Ted'" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 27 February, 2009, 7:30 AM If a copper is "A PERSON LIKELY TO BE CAUSED HARASSMENT, ALARM OR DISTRESS" from the use of a naughty word then I suggest they move into a more suitable line of work! I would personally feel more alarm, harassed or distressed if someone walked past in a shell suit. As the law seemingly doesn't include need the 'person' to be offended, then I wonder if the law is being used in the right way here - ie for threatening behaviour rather than a passing verbal.. > got off the train and saw one of these lads being arrested and, in his > words "roughed up". So he said to the police "leave him alone you > jobsworth cunts". They jumped on him, took his details and let him go. > Told him he would prob get a written warning but not a summons. but he > got a summons for "THREATENING ABUSIVE OR INSULTING WORDS OR BEHAVIOUR > OR > DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR WITHIN THE HEARING OR SIGHT OF A PERSON LIKELY TO > BE > CAUSED HARASSMENT, ALARM OR DISTRESS THEREBY.", according to the charge > sheet. _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist Sorry Macca - it's the curse of Bates old lad _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist Sorry Macca - it's the curse of Bates old lad _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist Sorry Macca - it's the curse of Bates old lad _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist Sorry Macca - it's the curse of Bates old lad
