Illegal rubbish dump fire exposing east London residents to toxic fumes | ITV News London
1 Like
Rainham, not the London I know.
He’s blathering on Twitter about not being able to say certain things in case it breaks his bail conditions
I don’t know much about how it works
So does that mean he wasn’t just arrested but has been charged with something?
I don’t think you can get bail conditions and bail unless you’ve been charged?
Policing everywhere, especially in London, is shocking
But I think there is probably a standard number of officers required by their protocols to do raids and search?
So it doesn’t matter if he is superman or not, potentially violent or not, ( and it’s hard to know if someone is potentially violent or not) , that is the number they send.
It would take ages for a lesser number to search a whole house, wouldn’t it?
1 Like
Yes, you can be given “pre-charge bail”
When the police have arrested and detained a suspect but do not have the evidence to charge them, the suspect must be released.
They can be released either on pre-charge bail (also known as police bail), “under investigation” (RUI) or with “no further action”.
As part of pre-charge bail, the Police can impose conditions if considered necessary and proportionate , eg to prevent an offence being committed.
If Fox has been arrested on suspicion of inciting people to commit criminal damage, then I guess the pre-charge bail conditions will have been imposed to prevent him continuing to do that.
2 Likes
Thank you!
Depends on their degree of incompetence .
1 Like
The same could be said for the climate change protesters who were prosecuted and found guilty of criminal behaviour.
Lots of people called for the protesters who caused disruption to be arrested. I fully agreed with prosecuting the protesters who caused criminal damage or enabled or incited others to cause criminal damage.
Just as I agree that Fox should not be allowed to go around inciting or enabling people to commit criminal damage. If he is breaking the law, he should take the consequences.
If people are allowed to go around breaking the laws just because they don’t agree with them, there would be anarchy.
That is not democracy.
As for stirring up a hornet’s nest of anti-social behaviour - that is what Fox is doing now, so he should be stopped.
Fox is not representing the majority of the voters in U.K. , nor even the majority of voters in London - he had his chance at standing for London Mayor and received less than 2% of the Vote - so why does he feel entitled to incite people to go out and commit criminal damage on public property? Damage which has to be paid for by the tax payers.
2 Likes
Right there is the least convincing justification for any point of view I’ve ever heard.
2 Likes
Well, no, I don’t get that? 
If it takes one incompetent police officer 6 hours to search a house, then wouldn’t it take 6 incompetent police officers 1 hour?
Not that there’s any suggestion these police officers were incompetent?
There are doubtless safety issues in the number their regulations require, plus less disruption to the suspect and less time for media involvement, and less time for the suspect or someone else in the house hide evidence or online conspirators to destroy digital evidence on the suspects devices remotely
I’m sure thinking has gone into the optimum numbers for an effective, safe raid
Objection M’lord…
We have no evidence that Fox is not representing the majority of voters in London or the UK with his protestations about the ULEZ scheme…
The London mayoral elections don’t prove anything, except that most people who live in London didn’t think that being mayor was the job for Mr Fox, or that there was a candidate more suitable.
I don t believe that for one minute .
He’s one puny actor they must need a regiment to go into a travellers camp .
( in fact they do usually in full riot gear)
Government subsidies to councils for transport have been cut nationwide, but those affected are not indulging in money raising codswallop to make good any shortfall via ‘taxing’ the motorist. All owners of vehicles over 3yrs of age have to submit to the MOT and pass to continue driving. That test includes strict emission measurements before a certificate is issued and therefor IMO and that of most drivers, is ensuring said vehicle meets current legislation with respect to pollution. Those wishing to lower the emissions even further should therefore lobby for new legislation to lower smog requirements even lower than existing measurements. We as people cannot allow upstart-crow minds to undermine legally enforced vehicle emission requirements unless the government amends nationwide laws to require lower vehicle emissions.
No it couldn’t be said about the climate change protestors interfering with emergency services or people getting to work, and besides, the climate does what the climate does, and no matter how much you protest about it, you will never have any effect on it, except local pollution perhaps…If I knew who they were I would go and spread orange paint all over their, or their parents houses and range rovers parked on the drives, and see how they like it.
The Laws are for everyone, whether you agree or disagree with the cause they are championing should not make any difference.
If criminal damage or incitement to cause criminal damage is a crime, then it makes no difference whether you are spraying property with paint and smashing windows, as some climate change protesters did, or spraying and smashing surveillance cameras, as this Blade Runner gang is doing.
It does seem that nowadays though, if their isn’t a law for it, the government will quickly push one through. Not that I would ever break the law myself…
Incitement isn’t a recently “pushed-through” piece of legislation, though.
The crime of Inciting other people to commit a crime was always part of English Common Law.
Criminal Damage has always been part of English Common Law too, well before subsequent Acts of Parliament updated it.
Wasn’t a new law provided to prosecute protestors Boot?
And here are a couple of recent new additions to laws…
Quote from Wiki:-
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.” The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.[10]
The original law being passed in 1986…
Is any of the above relevant to the topic under discussion, though?
Fox was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to commit criminal damage.
I wasn’t aware that he was being investigated for any crimes under the legislation you’ve just quoted.
No perhaps not Boot, I do ramble a bit sometimes…
