🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most concise
> and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the wiser as to the
> answer :)

Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
adjudged a crime".

On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most concise
>> and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the wiser as to the
>> answer :)
>
> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
> adjudged a crime".

And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
anything of any substance to discuss.

On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most concise
>>> and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the wiser as to the
>>> answer :)
>>
>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>> adjudged a crime".
>
> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
> anything of any substance to discuss.
>

It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.

On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the wiser as to
>>>> the answer :)
>>>
>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>> adjudged a crime".
>>
>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>
> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.

The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
violence'.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard

Want to try again?

On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>
>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>
>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>
>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>
> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
> violence'.
>
> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
>
> Want to try again?

Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
that he was right about it being assault?

Depending what exactly they did, it could be sexual assault as well.

On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>
>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>
>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>
>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>> violence'.
>>
>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
>>
>> Want to try again?
>
> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
> that he was right about it being assault?

There was no immediate unlawful violence to apprehend or suffer, so no
it isn't.

> Depending what exactly they did, it could be sexual assault as well.

It was just a strip search not an intimate body search.  What Section of
the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do you think applies and why?

On 30/06/2025 14:24, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>
>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>
>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>> violence'.
>>>
>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>
>>> Want to try again?
>>
>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>> that he was right about it being assault?
>
> There was no immediate unlawful violence to apprehend or suffer, so no
> it isn't.
>
>> Depending what exactly they did, it could be sexual assault as well.
>
> It was just a strip search not an intimate body search.  What Section of
> the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do you think applies and why?
>

So I suppose in Norman law, forcing a woman to strip naked and prodding
her vagina cannot be a form of "violence" and therefore cannot be
assault (or battery, which it would also be).

Good thing, then, that Norman Law is all in your head.

The officers can and should be prosecuted for assault. End of.

On 30/06/2025 14:49, The Todal wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 14:24, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>> justified
>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very
>>>>> slowly
>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>> violence'.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>
>>>> Want to try again?
>>>
>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>
>> There was no immediate unlawful violence to apprehend or suffer, so no
>> it isn't.
>>
>>> Depending what exactly they did, it could be sexual assault as well.
>>
>> It was just a strip search not an intimate body search.  What Section
>> of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do you think applies and why?
>
> So I suppose in Norman law, forcing a woman to strip naked and prodding
> her vagina cannot be a form of "violence" and therefore cannot be
> assault (or battery, which it would also be).
>
> Good thing, then, that Norman Law is all in your head.

A pity though that the difference between a strip search, to which she
was subjected, and an intimate body search, to which she wasn't, isn't
in yours.

I told you before you should look up the difference but it seems you
couldn't be bothered.  Let me then lead you by the hand to what you
should have read:

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/strip-search-what-are-my-rights/

She was not touched anywhere intimate.  What happened was not
'violence'.  Nothing was unlawful unless you can properly identify the
law that makes it so.  And there was no immediate threat of anything.

Apart from that ...

> The officers can and should be prosecuted for assault. End of.

Pointless and unethical if there's no case.  It would be purely vexatious.

Want to try again?

On 30/06/2025 15:20, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 14:49, The Todal wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 14:24, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>>> justified
>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very
>>>>>> slowly
>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person
>>>>> intentionally or
>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>
>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>
>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted
>>>> shows
>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>
>>> There was no immediate unlawful violence to apprehend or suffer, so
>>> no it isn't.
>>>
>>>> Depending what exactly they did, it could be sexual assault as well.
>>>
>>> It was just a strip search not an intimate body search.  What Section
>>> of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do you think applies and why?
>>
>> So I suppose in Norman law, forcing a woman to strip naked and
>> prodding her vagina cannot be a form of "violence" and therefore
>> cannot be assault (or battery, which it would also be).
>>
>> Good thing, then, that Norman Law is all in your head.
>
> A pity though that the difference between a strip search, to which she
> was subjected, and an intimate body search, to which she wasn't, isn't
> in yours.
>
> I told you before you should look up the difference but it seems you
> couldn't be bothered.  Let me then lead you by the hand to what you
> should have read:
>
> https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/strip-search-
> what-are-my-rights/
>
> She was not touched anywhere intimate.  What happened was not
> 'violence'.  Nothing was unlawful unless you can properly identify the
> law that makes it so.  And there was no immediate threat of anything.
>
> Apart from that ...
>
>> The officers can and should be prosecuted for assault. End of.
>
> Pointless and unethical if there's no case.  It would be purely vexatious.
>
> Want to try again?
>

I think you ought to be accompanied by a chaperone whenever you meet any
women. You are a clear and present danger to them.

On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>
>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>
>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>
>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>> violence'.
>>
>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
>>
>> Want to try again?
>
> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
> that he was right about it being assault?

Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
suffer ...?

Were they reckless, perhaps?




>
> Depending what exactly they did, it could be sexual assault as well.

On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>
>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>
>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>> violence'.
>>>
>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
>>>
>>> Want to try again?
>>
>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>> that he was right about it being assault?
>
> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
> suffer ...?
>
> Were they reckless, perhaps?

They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.

Their best hope would be that the legal system is extremely reluctant to
convict police officers of things unless it's completely unavoidable.

On 30/06/2025 16:09, GB wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>
>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>
>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>> violence'.
>>>
>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>
>>> Want to try again?
>>
>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>> that he was right about it being assault?
>
> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
> suffer ...?
>
> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>

Clearly they were.

The misconduct hearing concluded that the search on Child Q was
unnecessary, inappropriate and disproportionate. It was carried out
without authorisation from a more senior officer, without an appropriate
adult present and a proper record was not made afterwards.

The hearing found T/DC Linge and PC Szmydynsk breached standards of
professional behaviour in relation to authority, respect and courtesy,
orders and instructions, duties and responsibilities and discreditable
contact at the level of gross misconduct.

PC Wray breached standards in relation to authority, respect and
courtesy, orders and instructions and duties and responsibilities at the
level of misconduct.


>
>
>
>>
>> Depending what exactly they did, it could be sexual assault as well.
>

On 30/06/2025 16:09, GB wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>
>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>
>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>> violence'.
>>>
>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>
>>> Want to try again?
>>
>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>> that he was right about it being assault?
>
> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
> suffer ...?

' ... immediate unlawful violence'.

No.

No violence.  And nothing unlawful.

On 30/06/2025 16:46, The Todal wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 16:09, GB wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>> justified
>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very
>>>>> slowly
>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>> violence'.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>
>>>> Want to try again?
>>>
>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>
>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
>> suffer ...?
>>
>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>
> Clearly they were.

Clearly they weren't.  They just didn't have all their formal ducks in a
row.

> The misconduct hearing concluded that the search on Child Q was
> unnecessary, inappropriate and disproportionate. It was carried out
> without authorisation from a more senior officer, without an appropriate
> adult present and a proper record was not made afterwards.
>
> The hearing found T/DC Linge and PC Szmydynsk breached standards of
> professional behaviour in relation to authority, respect and courtesy,
> orders and instructions, duties and responsibilities and discreditable
> contact at the level of gross misconduct.
>
> PC Wray breached standards in relation to authority, respect and
> courtesy, orders and instructions and duties and responsibilities at the
> level of misconduct.

None of which means they were reckless as regards causing another to
suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence, because there wasn't  any.

On 30/06/2025 15:36, The Todal wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 15:20, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 14:49, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 14:24, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>>>> justified
>>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very
>>>>>>> slowly
>>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person
>>>>>> intentionally or
>>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted
>>>>> shows
>>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>>
>>>> There was no immediate unlawful violence to apprehend or suffer, so
>>>> no it isn't.
>>>>
>>>>> Depending what exactly they did, it could be sexual assault as well.
>>>>
>>>> It was just a strip search not an intimate body search.  What
>>>> Section of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do you think applies and why?
>>>
>>> So I suppose in Norman law, forcing a woman to strip naked and
>>> prodding her vagina cannot be a form of "violence" and therefore
>>> cannot be assault (or battery, which it would also be).
>>>
>>> Good thing, then, that Norman Law is all in your head.
>>
>> A pity though that the difference between a strip search, to which she
>> was subjected, and an intimate body search, to which she wasn't, isn't
>> in yours.
>>
>> I told you before you should look up the difference but it seems you
>> couldn't be bothered.  Let me then lead you by the hand to what you
>> should have read:
>>
>> https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/strip-search-
>> what-are-my-rights/
>>
>> She was not touched anywhere intimate.  What happened was not
>> 'violence'.  Nothing was unlawful unless you can properly identify the
>> law that makes it so.  And there was no immediate threat of anything.
>>
>> Apart from that ...
>>
>>> The officers can and should be prosecuted for assault. End of.
>>
>> Pointless and unethical if there's no case.  It would be purely
>> vexatious.
>>
>> Want to try again?
>>
>
> I think you ought to be accompanied by a chaperone whenever you meet any
> women. You are a clear and present danger to them.

Is swerving all you've got?

It's not my fault there is no law to make illegal what you have
emotively decided should be.

Op 30/06/2025 om 15:36 schreef The Todal:
> On 30/06/2025 15:20, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 14:49, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 14:24, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>>>> justified
>>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very
>>>>>>> slowly
>>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person
>>>>>> intentionally or
>>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted
>>>>> shows
>>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>>
>>>> There was no immediate unlawful violence to apprehend or suffer, so
>>>> no it isn't.
>>>>
>>>>> Depending what exactly they did, it could be sexual assault as well.
>>>>
>>>> It was just a strip search not an intimate body search.  What
>>>> Section of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do you think applies and why?
>>>
>>> So I suppose in Norman law, forcing a woman to strip naked and
>>> prodding her vagina cannot be a form of "violence" and therefore
>>> cannot be assault (or battery, which it would also be).
>>>
>>> Good thing, then, that Norman Law is all in your head.
>>
>> A pity though that the difference between a strip search, to which she
>> was subjected, and an intimate body search, to which she wasn't, isn't
>> in yours.
>>
>> I told you before you should look up the difference but it seems you
>> couldn't be bothered.  Let me then lead you by the hand to what you
>> should have read:
>>
>> https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/strip-search-
>> what-are-my-rights/
>>
>> She was not touched anywhere intimate.  What happened was not
>> 'violence'.  Nothing was unlawful unless you can properly identify the
>> law that makes it so.  And there was no immediate threat of anything.
>>
>> Apart from that ...
>>
>>> The officers can and should be prosecuted for assault. End of.
>>
>> Pointless and unethical if there's no case.  It would be purely
>> vexatious.
>>
>> Want to try again?
>>
>
> I think you ought to be accompanied by a chaperone whenever you meet any
> women. You are a clear and present danger to them.

This is a very explicit, detailed, ad-hominen accusation. Very classy.

--
Ottavio Caruso

On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>> violence'.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>
>>>> Want to try again?
>>>
>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>
>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
>> suffer ...?
>>
>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>
> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise.

But that isn't the criterion, which is 'cause another to suffer ...
immediate unlawful violence'.  Assault is all to do with unlawful
violence.  It's not about little girls crying because their delicate
sensitivities have been affronted.

> Sure,
> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.

What 'force'?

> Their best hope would be that the legal system is extremely reluctant to
> convict police officers of things unless it's completely unavoidable.

It's also reasonable to expect no conviction when no law has been broken.

On 1 Jul 2025 at 09:43:00 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

> On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>
>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>
>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>
>>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
>>> suffer ...?
>>>
>>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>>
>> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
>> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
>> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
>> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
>> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
>> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.
>
> My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
> their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
> intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
> they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to be a
> crime?
>
> After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often. It's
> a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
> whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
> officers think at the time that counts?
>
> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow procedures,
> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a crime?
>
>

As you, I think, said above, they could still be guilty if they were reckless
as to whether they were committing a crime. This is a pretty hight bar and,
while we don't have an automatic indemnity for police criminality like the
Americans have, it seems very unlikely a court would convict them.




>
>
>
>
>>
>> Their best hope would be that the legal system is extremely reluctant to
>> convict police officers of things unless it's completely unavoidable.


--
Roger Hayter

On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>> violence'.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>
>>>> Want to try again?
>>>
>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>
>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
>> suffer ...?
>>
>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>
> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.

My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to be a
crime?

After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often. It's
a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
officers think at the time that counts?

Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow procedures,
but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a crime?






>
> Their best hope would be that the legal system is extremely reluctant to
> convict police officers of things unless it's completely unavoidable.

On 01/07/2025 10:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2025 at 09:43:00 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>>
>>>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>>>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
>>>> suffer ...?
>>>>
>>>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>>>
>>> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
>>> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
>>> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
>>> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
>>> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
>>> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.
>>
>> My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
>> their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
>> intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
>> they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to be a
>> crime?
>>
>> After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often. It's
>> a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
>> whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
>> officers think at the time that counts?
>>
>> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow procedures,
>> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a crime?
>>
> As you, I think, said above, they could still be guilty if they were reckless
> as to whether they were committing a crime. This is a pretty hight bar and,
> while we don't have an automatic indemnity for police criminality like the
> Americans have, it seems very unlikely a court would convict them.

What do you think they could possibly be convicted of?

On 2025-07-01, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>
>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>
>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>
>>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
>>> suffer ...?
>>>
>>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>>
>> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
>> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
>> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
>> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
>> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
>> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.
>
> My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
> their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
> intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
> they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to be a
> crime?

Yes, I know, I was answering your question on that basis. If they had
the intent to do the thing then they have the mens rea. The fact they
thought the thing they did wasn't illegal doesn't affect that. I'm
sure the police are happy to say "ignorance of the law is no defence"
to people all the time, they can't use it as a defence themselves.

> After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often. It's
> a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
> whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
> officers think at the time that counts?

This is why the courts are very reluctant to ever find police guilty
of things.

> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow procedures,
> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a crime?

Because it's hard to argue that the force used was lawful if even the
police (as an organisation) think they shouldn't have used it.

On 01/07/2025 09:43, GB wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>>> justified
>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very
>>>>>> slowly
>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person
>>>>> intentionally or
>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>
>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>
>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted
>>>> shows
>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>
>>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
>>> suffer ...?
>>>
>>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>>
>> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
>> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
>> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
>> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
>> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
>> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.
>
> My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
> their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
> intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
> they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to be a
> crime?
>
> After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often. It's
> a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
> whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
> officers think at the time that counts?
>
> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow procedures,
> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a crime?
>

Mistakenly believing that you are acting within the law does not provide
an excuse, when you are in flagrant disobedience to your training and
guidelines.

In 2009 Ian Tomlinson was walking near a demonstration march and a
police officer struck him on the leg with a baton and then shoved him to
stop him trying to cross the police line. He died as a result of the blows.

The police officer was prosecuted for manslaughter and was acquitted
only because of uncertainty about medical causation. The officer could
never have succeeded by running a defence of "we're entitled to use that
sort of force when a member of the public disobeys instructions".

On 01/07/2025 10:49, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 01/07/2025 10:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 1 Jul 2025 at 09:43:00 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties
>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>>>>> justified
>>>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very
>>>>>>>> slowly
>>>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal
>>>>>>> definition of
>>>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person
>>>>>>> intentionally or
>>>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted
>>>>>> shows
>>>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>>>>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
>>>>> suffer ...?
>>>>>
>>>>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
>>>> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
>>>> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
>>>> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
>>>> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
>>>> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.
>>>
>>> My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
>>> their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
>>> intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
>>> they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to be a
>>> crime?
>>>
>>> After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often. It's
>>> a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
>>> whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
>>> officers think at the time that counts?
>>>
>>> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow procedures,
>>> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a crime?
>>>
>> As you, I think, said above, they could still be guilty if they were
>> reckless
>> as to whether they were committing a crime. This is a pretty hight bar
>> and,
>> while we don't have an automatic indemnity for police criminality like
>> the
>> Americans have, it seems very unlikely a court would convict them.
>
> What do you think they could possibly be convicted of?
>
>

Assault and battery.

They could also be sued for assault and battery in the civil courts.

On 01/07/2025 11:39 AM, The Todal wrote:

[ ... ]

> Mistakenly believing that you are acting within the law does not provide
> an excuse, when you are in flagrant disobedience to your training and
> guidelines.

What is the authority for that statement?
>
> In 2009 Ian Tomlinson was walking near a demonstration march and a
> police officer struck him on the leg with a baton and then shoved him to
> stop him trying to cross the police line. He died as a result of the blows.
>
> The police officer was prosecuted for manslaughter and was acquitted
> only because of uncertainty about medical causation. The officer could
> never have succeeded by running a defence of "we're entitled to use that
> sort of force when a member of the public disobeys instructions".

Can you not see an easy distinction between the cases?

On 01/07/2025 11:41, The Todal wrote:
> On 01/07/2025 10:49, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 01/07/2025 10:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 1 Jul 2025 at 09:43:00 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for
>>>>>>>>>>> anything the
>>>>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their
>>>>>>>>>>> duties to be
>>>>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>>>>>> justified
>>>>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't
>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding
>>>>>>>>> very slowly
>>>>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal
>>>>>>>> definition of
>>>>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person
>>>>>>>> intentionally or
>>>>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>>>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have
>>>>>>> quoted shows
>>>>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>>>>>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing
>>>>>> another to
>>>>>> suffer ...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
>>>>> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
>>>>> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
>>>>> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
>>>>> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
>>>>> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.
>>>>
>>>> My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
>>>> their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
>>>> intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
>>>> they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to be a
>>>> crime?
>>>>
>>>> After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often. It's
>>>> a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
>>>> whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
>>>> officers think at the time that counts?
>>>>
>>>> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow
>>>> procedures,
>>>> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a
>>>> crime?
>>>>
>>> As you, I think, said above, they could still be guilty if they were
>>> reckless
>>> as to whether they were committing a crime. This is a pretty hight
>>> bar and,
>>> while we don't have an automatic indemnity for police criminality
>>> like the
>>> Americans have, it seems very unlikely a court would convict them.
>>
>> What do you think they could possibly be convicted of?
>
> Assault and battery.
>
> They could also be sued for assault and battery in the civil courts.

No physical contact of any description has been alleged, so it can't be
battery, which in law is 'the intentional or reckless application of
unlawful force to another person'.

As for assault, it's not that either for the reasons I've explained
previously.

Anyone can of course be sued in the civil courts for anything.  If
there's no case to answer, however, as here, their case will almost
certainly be unceremoniously thrown out and they will lose.

I'm very sorry there's no crime been committed as you would like.
You've let your emotions run away with you.

You clearly think the present law is inadequate.  Perhaps you would like
to frame a law that would make what happened illegal and share your
first draft here for comment?

On 01/07/2025 11:56 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-07-01, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the most
>>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still none the
>>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything the
>>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their duties to be
>>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or justified
>>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there hasn't been
>>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very slowly
>>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition of
>>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person intentionally or
>>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful
>>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted shows
>>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>>
>>>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>>>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another to
>>>> suffer ...?
>>>>
>>>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>>>
>>> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
>>> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
>>> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
>>> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
>>> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
>>> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.
>>
>> My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
>> their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
>> intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
>> they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to be a
>> crime?
>
> Yes, I know, I was answering your question on that basis. If they had
> the intent to do the thing then they have the mens rea. The fact they
> thought the thing they did wasn't illegal doesn't affect that. I'm
> sure the police are happy to say "ignorance of the law is no defence"
> to people all the time, they can't use it as a defence themselves.

The police have the power and authority to do certain things which would
be an offence if someone else - or even an off-duty police officer - did
them. Exceeding the speed limit for police purposes is an obvious one.

Searching suspects (for any of a small number of reasons) is a specific
power granted to the police.

There is no connection to "ignorance of the law". That simply does not
arise.

>> After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often. It's
>> a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
>> whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
>> officers think at the time that counts?
>
> This is why the courts are very reluctant to ever find police guilty
> of things.
>
>> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow procedures,
>> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a crime?
>
> Because it's hard to argue that the force used was lawful if even the
> police (as an organisation) think they shouldn't have used it.

That's not the issue. The basic requirement is that the need for an
immediate search on the basis of reasonable suspicion is apparent to the
officer on the spot.

On 01/07/2025 11:39, The Todal wrote:
> On 01/07/2025 09:43, GB wrote:

>> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow
>> procedures, but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether
>> this was a crime?
>
> Mistakenly believing that you are acting within the law does not provide
> an excuse, when you are in flagrant disobedience to your training and
> guidelines.

That's got nothing to do with whether what actually happened was a crime.

> In 2009 Ian Tomlinson was walking near a demonstration march and a
> police officer struck him on the leg with a baton and then shoved him to
> stop him trying to cross the police line. He died as a result of the blows.
>
> The police officer was prosecuted for manslaughter and was acquitted
> only because of uncertainty about medical causation. The officer could
> never have succeeded by running a defence of "we're entitled to use that
> sort of force when a member of the public disobeys instructions".

Yes he could, easily, though it depends of course on the actual
circumstances of any particular incident..

'Currently the law allows the police to use reasonable force when
necessary in order to carry out their role of law enforcement'.

https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/BMRB_use_of_force_report.pdf

It seems you think there is or should be no such permission at all.

On 01/07/2025 11:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-07-01, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

>> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow procedures,
>> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a crime?
>
> Because it's hard to argue that the force used was lawful if even the
> police (as an organisation) think they shouldn't have used it.

What 'force' do you say was used?

And where is there any report of it?

On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 11:39:11 +0100, The Todal wrote:

> On 01/07/2025 09:43, GB wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the
>>>>>>>>>> most concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still
>>>>>>>>>> none the wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything
>>>>>>>>> the police have done ostensibly in the performance of their
>>>>>>>>> duties to be adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>>>> justified what crime they think may have been committed, so there
>>>>>>>> hasn't been anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very
>>>>>>> slowly and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition
>>>>>> of assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person
>>>>>> intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend
>>>>>> immediate unlawful violence'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted
>>>>> shows that he was right about it being assault?
>>>>
>>>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>>>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another
>>>> to suffer ...?
>>>>
>>>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>>>
>>> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
>>> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
>>> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
>>> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
>>> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
>>> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.
>>
>> My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
>> their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
>> intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
>> they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to be a
>> crime?
>>
>> After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often. It's
>> a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
>> whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
>> officers think at the time that counts?
>>
>> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow
>> procedures,
>> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a
>> crime?
>>
>>
> Mistakenly believing that you are acting within the law does not provide
> an excuse, when you are in flagrant disobedience to your training and
> guidelines.
>
> In 2009 Ian Tomlinson was walking near a demonstration march and a
> police officer struck him on the leg with a baton and then shoved him to
> stop him trying to cross the police line. He died as a result of the
> blows.
>
> The police officer was prosecuted for manslaughter and was acquitted
> only because of uncertainty about medical causation. The officer could
> never have succeeded by running a defence of "we're entitled to use that
> sort of force when a member of the public disobeys instructions".

You omit the bit that it took "so long" to decide what to do that the
(mysteriously) strict six month on a charge of common assault was not an
option.

There was much discussion (on uk.l.m) at the time over this state of
affairs. Mainly because it meant the only criminal charge that could be
laid was manslaughter. And that has a much higher bar pretty much
ensuring the case failed.

Based on statistics alone, it's clear that the legal system is weighted
such that police officers do not face court in anywhere near the numbers
that would be expected if you assume that the police force is a true
representation of the public it has power over. (See also: Westminster).

On 01/07/2025 12:02, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 01/07/2025 11:41, The Todal wrote:
>> On 01/07/2025 10:49, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2025 10:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>> On 1 Jul 2025 at 09:43:00 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> none the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything the
>>>>>>>>>>>> police have done ostensibly in the performance of their
>>>>>>>>>>>> duties to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>>>>>>> justified
>>>>>>>>>>> what crime they think may have been committed, so there
>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't been
>>>>>>>>>>> anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful
>>>>>>>>>> form of
>>>>>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding
>>>>>>>>>> very slowly
>>>>>>>>>> and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal
>>>>>>>>> definition of
>>>>>>>>> assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person
>>>>>>>>> intentionally or
>>>>>>>>> recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate
>>>>>>>>> unlawful
>>>>>>>>> violence'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>>>>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have
>>>>>>>> quoted shows
>>>>>>>> that he was right about it being assault?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>>>>>>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing
>>>>>>> another to
>>>>>>> suffer ...?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
>>>>>> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise.
>>>>>> Sure,
>>>>>> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
>>>>>> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
>>>>>> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
>>>>>> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
>>>>> their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
>>>>> intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
>>>>> they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to
>>>>> be a
>>>>> crime?
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often.
>>>>> It's
>>>>> a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
>>>>> whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
>>>>> officers think at the time that counts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow
>>>>> procedures,
>>>>> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a
>>>>> crime?
>>>>>
>>>> As you, I think, said above, they could still be guilty if they were
>>>> reckless
>>>> as to whether they were committing a crime. This is a pretty hight
>>>> bar and,
>>>> while we don't have an automatic indemnity for police criminality
>>>> like the
>>>> Americans have, it seems very unlikely a court would convict them.
>>>
>>> What do you think they could possibly be convicted of?
>>
>> Assault and battery.
>>
>> They could also be sued for assault and battery in the civil courts.
>
> No physical contact of any description has been alleged, so it can't be
> battery, which in law is 'the intentional or reckless application of
> unlawful force to another person'.


You think police can strip-search a person without any physical contact
of any kind. Maybe telekinesis?

You've invented some scenario in your mind which is at odds with the
facts and you are demanding that everyone agrees with you that no
assault or battery took place.

What is the matter with you? Why do you want to die on this particular hill?


>
> As for assault, it's not that either for the reasons I've explained
> previously.
>
> Anyone can of course be sued in the civil courts for anything.  If
> there's no case to answer, however, as here, their case will almost
> certainly be unceremoniously thrown out and they will lose.
>
> I'm very sorry there's no crime been committed as you would like. You've
> let your emotions run away with you.
>
> You clearly think the present law is inadequate.  Perhaps you would like
> to frame a law that would make what happened illegal and share your
> first draft here for comment?
>
>

On 01/07/2025 11:46, JNugent wrote:
> On 01/07/2025 11:39 AM, The Todal wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> Mistakenly believing that you are acting within the law does not provide
>> an excuse, when you are in flagrant disobedience to your training and
>> guidelines.
>
> What is the authority for that statement?

You want free lessons in law now? Are you really unaware that police
officers can be prosecuted for assault even if they personally believe
that the force was reasonable?  I know how reluctant you are to browse
the internet, so I'm going to suggest you look up the case of Donald
Burgess, assault by taser. If you can't be bothered to look it up, maybe
someone else with more patience can explain it to you.


>>
>> In 2009 Ian Tomlinson was walking near a demonstration march and a
>> police officer struck him on the leg with a baton and then shoved him to
>> stop him trying to cross the police line. He died as a result of the
>> blows.
>>
>> The police officer was prosecuted for manslaughter and was acquitted
>> only because of uncertainty about medical causation. The officer could
>> never have succeeded by running a defence of "we're entitled to use that
>> sort of force when a member of the public disobeys instructions".
>
> Can you not see an easy distinction between the cases?

On 7/1/25 16:30, The Todal wrote:

>
>
> You think police can strip-search a person without any physical contact
> of any kind. Maybe telekinesis?
>

Yes, they say take your clothes off, so you do. I didn't find being
strip searched traumatic. It really wasn't much different to getting
undressed for a shower after a games period at school.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 16:30:09 +0100, The Todal wrote:

> On 01/07/2025 12:02, Norman Wells wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
>
>
> You think police can strip-search a person without any physical contact
> of any kind. Maybe telekinesis?

Weren't there some airport body scanners that were a perverts paradise ?

On 01/07/2025 04:24 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 11:39:11 +0100, The Todal wrote:
>
>> On 01/07/2025 09:43, GB wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 17:26, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the
>>>>>>>>>>> most concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still
>>>>>>>>>>> none the wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything
>>>>>>>>>> the police have done ostensibly in the performance of their
>>>>>>>>>> duties to be adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>>>>> justified what crime they think may have been committed, so there
>>>>>>>>> hasn't been anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form of
>>>>>>>> search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding very
>>>>>>>> slowly and a prosecution is still a possibility in the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal definition
>>>>>>> of assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a person
>>>>>>> intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend
>>>>>>> immediate unlawful violence'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted
>>>>>> shows that he was right about it being assault?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can I clarify this? If the police officers thought they were acting
>>>>> within their lawful powers, were they intentionally causing another
>>>>> to suffer ...?
>>>>>
>>>>> Were they reckless, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> They weren't "reckless", they were intentionally causing another to
>>>> suffer. I don't see how it would be possible to argue otherwise. Sure,
>>>> that (probably) wasn't the primary purpose of what they did, but they
>>>> knew it was an inevitable consequence of their actions and they went
>>>> ahead anyway. Their only defence would be that their application of
>>>> force was "lawful", and they would clearly be on shaky ground there.
>>>
>>> My point was a bit more subtle than that. The police officers thought
>>> their actions were lawful. So, I don't see how they can have
>>> intentionally caused ... unlawful violence? So, if they believed what
>>> they were doing was lawful, did they have the mens rea for this to be a
>>> crime?
>>>
>>> After all, police officers are required to be violent quite often. It's
>>> a lawful part of their job. In some cases, it must be a fine line
>>> whether a particular action is lawful or not, but is it what the
>>> officers think at the time that counts?
>>>
>>> Todal makes the point above that the officers did not follow
>>> procedures,
>>> but I can't see that that has any relevance to whether this was a
>>> crime?
>>>
>>>
>> Mistakenly believing that you are acting within the law does not provide
>> an excuse, when you are in flagrant disobedience to your training and
>> guidelines.
>>
>> In 2009 Ian Tomlinson was walking near a demonstration march and a
>> police officer struck him on the leg with a baton and then shoved him to
>> stop him trying to cross the police line. He died as a result of the
>> blows.
>>
>> The police officer was prosecuted for manslaughter and was acquitted
>> only because of uncertainty about medical causation. The officer could
>> never have succeeded by running a defence of "we're entitled to use that
>> sort of force when a member of the public disobeys instructions".
>
> You omit the bit that it took "so long" to decide what to do that the
> (mysteriously) strict six month on a charge of common assault was not an
> option.
>
> There was much discussion (on uk.l.m) at the time over this state of
> affairs. Mainly because it meant the only criminal charge that could be
> laid was manslaughter. And that has a much higher bar pretty much
> ensuring the case failed.
>
> Based on statistics alone, it's clear that the legal system is weighted
> such that police officers do not face court in anywhere near the numbers
> that would be expected if you assume that the police force is a true
> representation of the public it has power over. (See also: Westminster).

Are you factoring in the powers that police officers have that the rest
of the public don't?

On 01/07/2025 04:38 PM, The Todal wrote:

> On 01/07/2025 11:46, JNugent wrote:
>> On 01/07/2025 11:39 AM, The Todal wrote:
>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> Mistakenly believing that you are acting within the law does not provide
>>> an excuse, when you are in flagrant disobedience to your training and
>>> guidelines.
>
>> What is the authority for that statement?
>
> You want free lessons in law now?

No. Just your reasons for saying what you said.

> Are you really unaware that police
> officers can be prosecuted for assault even if they personally believe
> that the force was reasonable?  I know how reluctant you are to browse
> the internet, so I'm going to suggest you look up the case of Donald
> Burgess, assault by taser. If you can't be bothered to look it up, maybe
> someone else with more patience can explain it to you.

Wasn't that something to do with whether the use of a Taser - as opposed
to any other means of applying force - was reasonable in the circumstances?
>
>>> In 2009 Ian Tomlinson was walking near a demonstration march and a
>>> police officer struck him on the leg with a baton and then shoved him to
>>> stop him trying to cross the police line. He died as a result of the
>>> blows.
>
>>> The police officer was prosecuted for manslaughter and was acquitted
>>> only because of uncertainty about medical causation.

He was... acquitted?

I see.

> The officer could
>>> never have succeeded by running a defence of "we're entitled to use that
>>> sort of force when a member of the public disobeys instructions".

Did he run that as a defence?
>
>> Can you not see an easy distinction between the cases?

No response to that question.

On 15:20  30 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
> On 30/06/2025 14:49, The Todal wrote:
>> On 30/06/2025 14:24, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2025 13:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-30, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/06/2025 10:53, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 22:06, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2025 21:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just a reflection that despite the subject being one of the
>>>>>>>>> most concise and least ambiguous in uklm history, I am still
>>>>>>>>> none the wiser as to the answer :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well the answer is "because it is incredibly rare for anything
>>>>>>>> the police have done ostensibly in the performance of their
>>>>>>>> duties to be adjudged a crime".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course because no-one here has properly identified or
>>>>>>> justified what crime they think may have been committed, so
>>>>>>> there hasn't been anything of any substance to discuss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems obvious that it was an assault, being an unlawful form
>>>>>> of search. So perhaps the wheels of justice are still grinding
>>>>>> very slowly and a prosecution is still a possibility in the
>>>>>> future.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that is that it doesn't meet the legal
>>>>> definition of assault which, in the UK, is 'an act by which a
>>>>> person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or
>>>>> apprehend immediate unlawful violence'.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-
>>>>> incorporating-charging-standard
>>>>>
>>>>> Want to try again?
>>>>
>>>> Why would he want to try again when the definition you have quoted
>>>> shows that he was right about it being assault?
>>>
>>> There was no immediate unlawful violence to apprehend or suffer, so
>>> no it isn't.
>>>
>>>> Depending what exactly they did, it could be sexual assault as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> It was just a strip search not an intimate body search.  What
>>> Section of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do you think applies and
>>> why?
>>
>> So I suppose in Norman law, forcing a woman to strip naked and
>> prodding her vagina cannot be a form of "violence" and therefore
>> cannot be assault (or battery, which it would also be).
>>
>> Good thing, then, that Norman Law is all in your head.
>
> A pity though that the difference between a strip search, to which
> she was subjected, and an intimate body search, to which she wasn't,
> isn't in yours.
>
> I told you before you should look up the difference but it seems you
> couldn't be bothered.  Let me then lead you by the hand to what you
> should have read:
>
> https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/strip-
> search-what-are-my-rights/
>
> She was not touched anywhere intimate.  What happened was not
> 'violence'.  Nothing was unlawful unless you can properly identify
> the law that makes it so.  And there was no immediate threat of
> anything.
>
> Apart from that ...
>
>> The officers can and should be prosecuted for assault. End of.
>
> Pointless and unethical if there's no case.  It would be purely
> vexatious.
>
> Want to try again?

The distinction between a strip search and an intimate search is
discussed in Hackney Council's safeguarding review of Child Q.

Definitions in paragraphs 2.4 to 2.7.

<https://chscp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Child-Q-PUBLISHED-14-
March-22.pdf>

On 01/07/2025 16:30, The Todal wrote:
> On 01/07/2025 12:02, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 01/07/2025 11:41, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2025 10:49, Norman Wells wrote:

>>>> What do you think they could possibly be convicted of?
>>>
>>> Assault and battery.
>>>
>>> They could also be sued for assault and battery in the civil courts.
>>
>> No physical contact of any description has been alleged, so it can't
>> be battery, which in law is 'the intentional or reckless application
>> of unlawful force to another person'.
>
> You think police can strip-search a person without any physical contact
> of any kind. Maybe telekinesis?

I refer you to Pancho's post this afternoon detailing his personal
experience.

> You've invented some scenario in your mind which is at odds with the
> facts and you are demanding that everyone agrees with you that no
> assault or battery took place.

Hardly.  You have not established that any force was used, let alone
unreasonable force, or that there was any intentional act that caused
another person to fear an immediate and unlawful use of force against
them, which would constitute 'assault', or indeed anything at all that
comes close to constituting a criminal offence.

It's not exactly a convincing case, is it?

> What is the matter with you? Why do you want to die on this particular
> hill?

You're the one insisting that the clear legal definitions of assault and
battery apply but providing no evidence whatsoever.

The law isn't what is in your head but what is on paper.

>> As for assault, it's not that either for the reasons I've explained
>> previously.
>>
>> Anyone can of course be sued in the civil courts for anything.  If
>> there's no case to answer, however, as here, their case will almost
>> certainly be unceremoniously thrown out and they will lose.
>>
>> I'm very sorry there's no crime been committed as you would like.
>> You've let your emotions run away with you.
>>
>> You clearly think the present law is inadequate.  Perhaps you would
>> like to frame a law that would make what happened illegal and share
>> your first draft here for comment?

Well, how about it?

On 1 Jul 2025 at 22:50:37 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

>
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:mciuocF74lrU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> I refer you to Pancho's post this afternoon detailing his personal experience.
>
> Mansplaining 101.
>
> You appear to be overlooking the fact that presumably Pancho wasn't
> menstruating, at the time of "his personal experience".
>
>>
>>> You've invented some scenario in your mind which is at odds with the facts
>>> and you are demanding that everyone agrees with you that no assault or battery
>>> took place.
>>
>> Hardly. You have not established that any force was used, let alone
>> unreasonable
>> force, or that there was any intentional act that caused another person to
>> fear an
>> immediate and unlawful use of force against them,
>
> If somebody does something which they definitely wouldn't normally do,
> in this case a 15 year old schoolgirl stripping naked in front of complete
> strangers, the only possible explanation is either an inducement of some
> kind, which in this case clearly doesn't apply, or an implied threat.
>
> Otherwise, why else would she have complied ?
>
>
> bb

This is of course the question to which Norman has no answer valid answer.
But I am not going to tell him, in case I stimulate another run of 50 repeats
of his statement of Norman-law.


--

Roger Hayter

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mciuocF74lrU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I refer you to Pancho's post this afternoon detailing his personal experience.

Mansplaining 101.

You appear to be overlooking the fact that presumably Pancho wasn't
menstruating, at the time of "his personal experience".

>
>> You've invented some scenario in your mind which is at odds with the facts
>> and you are demanding that everyone agrees with you that no assault or battery
>> took place.
>
> Hardly.  You have not established that any force was used, let alone unreasonable
> force, or that there was any intentional act that caused another person to fear an
> immediate and unlawful use of force against them,

If somebody does something which they definitely wouldn't normally do,
in this case a 15 year old schoolgirl stripping naked in front of complete
strangers, the only possible explanation is either an inducement of some
kind, which in this case clearly doesn't apply, or an implied threat.

Otherwise, why else would she have complied ?


bb

On 2025-07-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/1/25 16:30, The Todal wrote:
>> You think police can strip-search a person without any physical contact
>> of any kind. Maybe telekinesis?
>
> Yes, they say take your clothes off, so you do. I didn't find being
> strip searched traumatic. It really wasn't much different to getting
> undressed for a shower after a games period at school.

Are you a fifteen-year-old black girl?

On 02/07/2025 01:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-07-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/1/25 16:30, The Todal wrote:

>>> You think police can strip-search a person without any physical contact
>>> of any kind. Maybe telekinesis?
>>
>> Yes, they say take your clothes off, so you do. I didn't find being
>> strip searched traumatic. It really wasn't much different to getting
>> undressed for a shower after a games period at school.
>
> Are you a fifteen-year-old black girl?

Are they above the law?

On 01/07/2025 23:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2025 at 22:50:37 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:mciuocF74lrU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> I refer you to Pancho's post this afternoon detailing his personal experience.
>>
>> Mansplaining 101.
>>
>> You appear to be overlooking the fact that presumably Pancho wasn't
>> menstruating, at the time of "his personal experience".
>>
>>>
>>>> You've invented some scenario in your mind which is at odds with the facts
>>>> and you are demanding that everyone agrees with you that no assault or battery
>>>> took place.
>>>
>>> Hardly. You have not established that any force was used, let alone
>>> unreasonable
>>> force, or that there was any intentional act that caused another person to
>>> fear an
>>> immediate and unlawful use of force against them,
>>
>> If somebody does something which they definitely wouldn't normally do,
>> in this case a 15 year old schoolgirl stripping naked in front of complete
>> strangers, the only possible explanation is either an inducement of some
>> kind, which in this case clearly doesn't apply, or an implied threat.
>>
>> Otherwise, why else would she have complied ?
>
> This is of course the question to which Norman has no answer valid answer.
> But I am not going to tell him, in case I stimulate another run of 50 repeats
> of his statement of Norman-law.

What I've given you are absolutely verifiable statements of UK law and
definitions that apply within it.

If they don't accord with what's in your head, it's your head that's wrong.

If they don't accord with what you think the law should be, lobby your
MP.  That's how it works.

Why don't you give us here your first draft of what you think the law
should say, which we can then discuss?  Or is it yet another in a rather
long line now of you saying 'ain't it awful' with no idea at all of what
you want or how to put it right?

On 01/07/2025 22:50, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:mciuocF74lrU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> I refer you to Pancho's post this afternoon detailing his personal experience.
>
> Mansplaining 101.
>
> You appear to be overlooking the fact that presumably Pancho wasn't
> menstruating, at the time of "his personal experience".

He could have been doing anything.  But that's irrelevant.  Those who do
are not above the law.

>>> You've invented some scenario in your mind which is at odds with the facts
>>> and you are demanding that everyone agrees with you that no assault or battery
>>> took place.
>>
>> Hardly.  You have not established that any force was used, let alone unreasonable
>> force, or that there was any intentional act that caused another person to fear an
>> immediate and unlawful use of force against them,
>
> If somebody does something which they definitely wouldn't normally do,
> in this case a 15 year old schoolgirl stripping naked in front of complete
> strangers, the only possible explanation is either an inducement of some
> kind, which in this case clearly doesn't apply, or an implied threat.
>
> Otherwise, why else would she have complied ?

It would have been an inducement, namely avoiding arrest for obstructing
a police officer in the execution of his duty under Section 89 of the
Police Act 1996, with the consequence that she would be taken to a
police station where it would be carried out anyway using whatever force
is necessary.

That's not a threat, particularly of immediate, unlawful violence, so is
not assault.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 22:50:37 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:

> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:mciuocF74lrU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> I refer you to Pancho's post this afternoon detailing his personal
>> experience.
>
> Mansplaining 101.
>
> You appear to be overlooking the fact that presumably Pancho wasn't
> menstruating, at the time of "his personal experience".

Most of this thread so far has been mere posturing. But this post does
raise a serious question: Are menstruating women subject to the same rules
as everybody else, or not?

It is slightly reminiscent of the argument, often heard from feminist
lobbying groups, that female criminals should be excused prison because of
the effect on their families. The same argument is never heard about
fathers, presumably because it would never be admitted as valid.

Op 02/07/2025 om 07:45 schreef Norman Wells:
> On 02/07/2025 01:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2025-07-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/1/25 16:30, The Todal wrote:
>
>>>> You think police can strip-search a person without any physical contact
>>>> of any kind. Maybe telekinesis?
>>>
>>> Yes, they say take your clothes off, so you do. I didn't find being
>>> strip searched traumatic. It really wasn't much different to getting
>>> undressed for a shower after a games period at school.
>>
>> Are you a fifteen-year-old black girl?
>
> Are they above the law?
>

That's what seems to be implied here.

It's always the white saviours.

--
Ottavio Caruso

Op 02/07/2025 om 07:51 schreef Norman Wells:
> If they don't accord with what's in your head, it's your head that's wrong.

It's called socialism, Norm.

--
Ottavio Caruso

On 02/07/2025 08:41, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Op 02/07/2025 om 07:51 schreef Norman Wells:

>> If they don't accord with what's in your head, it's your head that's
>> wrong.
>
> It's called socialism, Norm.

It's also anti-police 'protest' mentality born of ignorance of the law.

"Don't touch me, you can't touch me, you're assaulting me!", usually
followed by screams and an immediate collapse to the floor as if
mortally wounded.

We've seen it so many times, it's got really boring.

On 7/1/25 22:50, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:mciuocF74lrU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> I refer you to Pancho's post this afternoon detailing his personal experience.
>
> Mansplaining 101.
>
> You appear to be overlooking the fact that presumably Pancho wasn't
> menstruating, at the time of "his personal experience".
>

No, I wasn't menstruating. However, I was searched in a large room with
8+ police officers present. It appeared to me at the time to be an
attempt to intimidate and humiliate me.

It is easy to present special circumstances, that make the search more
heinous.

In this girl's case. The police action was judged inappropriate, they
were fired. That seems about right to me. I think the school
safeguarding officer should also have been fired.

The benefit of a case like this is as an example to others.

>>
>>> You've invented some scenario in your mind which is at odds with the facts
>>> and you are demanding that everyone agrees with you that no assault or battery
>>> took place.
>>
>> Hardly.  You have not established that any force was used, let alone unreasonable
>> force, or that there was any intentional act that caused another person to fear an
>> immediate and unlawful use of force against them,
>
> If somebody does something which they definitely wouldn't normally do,
> in this case a 15 year old schoolgirl stripping naked in front of complete
> strangers, the only possible explanation is either an inducement of some
> kind, which in this case clearly doesn't apply, or an implied threat.
>
> Otherwise, why else would she have complied ?
>

There is often an implied threat with police officers. People cooperate
because they know bad things might occur if they don't. That is why I
stop my car if a police officer waves me down.

On 7/2/25 01:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-07-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/1/25 16:30, The Todal wrote:
>>> You think police can strip-search a person without any physical contact
>>> of any kind. Maybe telekinesis?
>>
>> Yes, they say take your clothes off, so you do. I didn't find being
>> strip searched traumatic. It really wasn't much different to getting
>> undressed for a shower after a games period at school.
>
> Are you a fifteen-year-old black girl?

No, I'm white, middle class, that was the point. Roger was presenting
that the police only did this type of stuff to black people.

On 02/07/2025 09:24, Pancho wrote:
> On 7/2/25 01:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2025-07-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/1/25 16:30, The Todal wrote:
>>>> You think police can strip-search a person without any physical contact
>>>> of any kind. Maybe telekinesis?
>>>
>>> Yes, they say take your clothes off, so you do. I didn't find being
>>> strip searched traumatic. It really wasn't much different to getting
>>> undressed for a shower after a games period at school.
>>
>> Are you a fifteen-year-old black girl?
>
> No, I'm white, middle class, that was the point. Roger was presenting
> that the police only did this type of stuff to black people.

Some here seem to think that if you'd used the magic words 'I'm on my
period' they'd have had to back off.

After all, it would be sex discrimination if they didn't, wouldn't it?