"HELP" with Human rights

by living man 01 Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:39 pm

Hello, 2 questions I need help with & think, I can use them to see if they work. Yes, lets try are world humane rights.

1) My Uk friend was living in Thailand, getting his uk pension sent over to him. He has a Thai wife who is also retired. He came back to the UK because of ill health & his wife came with him. She could only get a 6 month visa. So she as to go back home to sunny Thailand & my friend as got to stay here. It would be nice for his wife of may be 10 yrs or so to stay here in the uk, to take care of her husband. She have her own money & her family back in Thailand. It would be nice if some 1 can pull something out of are world humane rights hat, so I can give to my friend & take to the Uk embassy & let his wife take care of him while he sick now.

2) My m8 is in trouble with the law & in crown court after posting a racist rant on social media about blowing things up, & he was just talking stupid. He is going to get may be 6 yrs I think. He have barristers defending him but he in shit street. I would like to no if any 1 can help me with are world humane rights. I think, that some were in are hr, there mite be something that says, what you are thinking, its better to speak out than to keep it in? This was just after the Manchester concert attack. He has said he got spiked. He has apologised on social media. It looks like, he mite go to jail for a long time.
Cheers....

by **daveiron** Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:16 pm

Take a look in the 'useful information ' section .what you may be looking for maybe there.

by Jinxer Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:39 pm

That must be one hell of a rant to end up in Crown Court, what have they charged him with and what evidence do they have.

by Little D Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:17 pm

Hey,

1, has your friend explored all of their options past the initial visa? := https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/foreign-national

2, some people have different views on 'freedom of speech' some even think they have it. Unfortunately for your friend, if the 'public' (there are some legal protections for 'non public' discourse) post they made could be inferred as 'inciting violence' (or similar) then they placed themselves in a precarious position. Going on to remove the post is one thing and, this itself may come back and bite them in court as it is a potential acknowledgement that the original act is deemed consciously wrong by the actor, this is still debatable though as the actual reasoning is not clear e.g. they may have removed it because they got threatened themselves but, didn't actually think they did anything wrong as the original act.

To then go and 'publicly' announce that they consciously acknowledge the original act was wrong and apologise is pretty much an admission of guilt and, to do that in a public space when the public opinion has little to no influence on a 'legal' decision was seriously bad judgement on their behalf. Fair enough, your friend is suggesting they may have been spiked but if they had dealt with this in a sensible manner they would have had their day in court to reason/object from the start.

I suppose going into a criminal court that has the means to inflict incarceration and claiming that 'I consciously accept that what I did was wrong and have publically admitted and apologised for my 'criminal' act so please be lenient on me I think I may have been spiked' may get a reduced sentence for not wasting court time. I hope your friend has reported the suggested criminal act against them getting spiked else, it will most likely stand as little to no defence or consideration against the original act being dealt with by court.

by living man 01 Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:51 am

Hello jinxr, He been charged with threats to kill & a load of other chargers. They have got him on video with a sward & 1 of them health powder drink things shaped like a grande. Strapped to his top. They having 2 cases, 1 for the chargers to be threw out & the trail... This month & next month. He still on remand. Last time he was up the barrister said that that case is going to get threw out but then they got a asian lady judge who remanded him wow.
Hi actinglikeabanker, cheers for the reply m8.
Gudluck...

by Boudica Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:47 pm

A rant on Social Media is a rant to the world. People have to think about what they are saying before posting. As it wil bit them on the a*se

by **Lopsum** Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:15 pm

without knowing what your friend did no one can say for sure, if it was obviously messing about then i doubt the punishment will be incarceration, maybe a fine if he did say" i will kill ..." the big charges require intent , can they prove intent? i doubt it .

by Svetlana Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:26 pm

Lopsum wrote:without knowing what your friend did no one can say for sure, if it was obviously messing about then i doubt the punishment will be incarceration, maybe a fine if he did say" i will kill ..." the big charges require intent , can they prove intent? i doubt it .

I think "I will" shows intent.

by **Lopsum** Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:43 pm

does it prove it?

by Svetlana Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:17 pm

Yes. "I will" is a statement of intent.

by **Lopsum** Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:45 pm

yes but on its own it doesnot prove intent. have you heard the term "empty threat" ? empty of what you might think. Well its empty of intent.
i will kill you . there i said it, but what is my intent, to kill you or prove myself right?

by Svetlana Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:05 pm

]Unfortunately, the courts take death threats seriously, empty or not. Remember the guy convicted of tweeting he was going to blow up an airport? His defence that he was joking and did it out of frustration at delays didn't help him. Or people joking their violin case contains a Tommy gun to a customs officer? The airport staff had no way of knowing if he was serious or not and suffered alarm and distress.
I don't know your state of mind or what you're capable of so your threat may well cause me alarm and distress.

by Little D Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:50 pm

"I will" is not a full statement of intent, it can easily be followed up with "do this if they do that" and the same in reverse e.g. they will do that if you do this. If no common ground can be found then neither will needs to be implemented. Bit like when two people (general context) circle each other for 5 min's, pushing each other saying things like "go on, hit me and then "I will" hit you", "go on, you start it and "I will" end it" and then they both just walk separate ways.

This thread got a bit weird, I got the impression from the OP that their "m8" had all the time in the world to remove posts, make a public apology etc etc. But they are actually remanded?. I think possibly the OP may have been referring to "freedom of expression"?. Personally, I don't see much relevance in the nationality or gender type of the judge, from what I have experienced, they are able to see past those types of though prejudices.

If it were that serious an offence to get remanded straight away or, bring a criminal prosecution then one would think that any evidence would not be allowed to be tampered with at all. Bit like if someone were to stalk someone on the internet, once the police have been appraised, then those IP logs/cctv images are taken as evidence, they wouldn't let the stalker back track, apologise whilst they are trying to delete records/images and pick up their scone crumbs trail.

What is luck?, a perceived positive/beneficial outcome without planning for one?. Why plan, what if one were the worst planner, and critical pitfalls in the plan made it fail more often than succeed, surely this would be having a negative effect on luck?. Well, either way, if you have a way to quantify it then perhaps your m8 could use some more than me.

by **Lopsum** Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:50 pm

Threats to Kill
One of the more serious violent offences is Making Threats to Kill, contrary to s.16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. If you are accused of threatening to kill someone, the Prosecution must prove that:

You have made a threat to kill (either spoken or by your actions), and
You intended that the victim would fear the threat would be carried out

Often, the police will arrest you for threats to kill after an allegation of a heated argument. The phrase “I’ll kill you” is commonly used in the heat of the moment as an expression of anger, but it is very rare that someone says it with the necessary intention to commit the offence. However, these cases are often brought to Court and the consequences can be severe if you are convicted.
The offence of making a threat to kill is an either way offence, meaning it can be dealt with either in the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court. The offence is so serious that most people found guilty would be at risk of a prison sentence. Cases involving alleged threats to kill need detailed preparation before trial, as well as careful cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to ensure that you have the best chance at being found Not Guilty of the charge.
The solicitors at Stephen Lickrish & Associates have dealt with may clients accused of making threats to kill. For an example of such a case, please look at the case study of R v M. If you, or someone you know, have been accused of making a threat to kill, contact us to see how we can help you.
See also:

Common Assault
S.20 wounding
S.18 wounding with intent
Police station interview
Magistrates Court
Youth Court
Crown Court
Domestic violence
Self defence

by living man 01 Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:05 pm

Thanks for the replies. I was hoping that i could use are human rights & get this case lashed out of court. Will let yous all no what happens to him rrrrrr...
Cheers....

by Candor Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:15 am

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur means that “no one suffers punishment for mere intent.” No one is punished for merely thinking of a crime. However, if a crime is followed up by some act both the action and intention is punishable. If the act does not happen and there is a mere attempt, the attempt to commit the crime is also punishable. General rule is that, when an act is criminal, the intention is also criminal. However, intention alone without any action according to the intention is not punishable.

by Tiggy Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:58 pm

Another definition of that doctrine is:

'Nobody should be punished for his thoughts'

The 'crime' if you like, was the fact your friend expressed his thoughts through the use of social media.

by **assassin** Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:49 pm

Human rights may be a little dodgy as to proceed you have to have a Human Rights trained judge and this can sometimes be tricky.

by Boudica Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:54 am

Tiggy wrote:Another definition of that doctrine is:

'Nobody should be punished for his thoughts'

The 'crime' if you like, was the fact your friend expressed his thoughts through the use of social media.

I would hardly call a video of someone running around with a sword a 'thought'

by Jinxer Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:08 pm

Boudica wrote:
Tiggy wrote:Another definition of that doctrine is:

'Nobody should be punished for his thoughts'

The 'crime' if you like, was the fact your friend expressed his thoughts through the use of social media.

I would hardly call a video of someone running around with a sword a 'thought'

Done in your own front room it would be. In the middle of a shopping centre would be a different case.

by Boudica Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:09 pm

Jinxer, where on this post dose it say it was in his front room?

by Jinxer Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:13 pm

Boudica wrote:Jinxer, where on this post dose it say it was in his front room?

Nowhere I don't think, it don't say nothing about shopping centre's either but it's still relevant to the subject.

by Svetlana Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:20 pm

What do the barristers he has defending him say?

by Boudica Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:29 pm

Jinxer wrote:
Boudica wrote:Jinxer, where on this post dose it say it was in his front room?
Nowhere I don't think, it don't say nothing about shopping centre's either but it's still relevant to the subject.

The point is do no harm mentally or physically. We have to be responsible for our own actions. Problem is once it's out in the public you can't put it back in the box.

by Jinxer Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:48 am

What is good for the OP is the fact we don't all agree he's done wrong, which in the light of things wouldn't or shouldn't be to much of a problem for a half decent Barrister to show reasonable doubt to a jury.

by Sponsored content

"HELP" with Human rights

"HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights

Re: "HELP" with Human rights