It wasn't planned, he didn't mean it. Seriously, what did he think would happen if he hit a police woman with a sledgehammer!

[HeyHoHenryHippy]

Remember the man that hit a policewoman with a sledgehammer breaking her spine?

"Corner was also found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm after striking Sgt Kate Evans twice with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. He was cleared of the more serious offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent."

"Corner had told the court he "would never want to seriously hurt anyone" and he denied using violence against people during the raid was planned."

It wasn't planned, he didn't mean it.

AFAIK the sentencing hasn't taken place yet, so I hope the outcome of that will reflect the contempt for this scum and he doesn't get out in a few months. If the sentence is short there is always the hope that it will be contested and reviewed. These individuals with their smug attitudes to acceptable violence need to be taken out of society long term.

The same people want to defund the police! What the hell does that mean?

It is not about lack of understanding, when I was on jury service the judge had it clear that we had to be "sure" i.e. "beyond all doubt" . As I said "beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. some element of doubt is not acceptable anymore.

The poster is highlighting the inconsistency is in relation to their pretence of logic. If not the person on the street, then certainly a leader of a political party is meant to be able to respond logically with a coherent argument.

In this particular instance, it appears that underlying both sets of comments re Golders Green attack and the policewoman being attacked is based on a wholesale anti-police attitude imported from America. Perhaps true for some.

However, I’m not completely sold on the two being consistent inasmuch as the anti police comments in the Golders Green attack were not reflexively anti-police per se, but served a different purpose. They had a political messaging undertone of deflecting / reassuring (some of the) the Muslim Green Party members/voters. Doubtful they were thought up by Polanski.

It means they want to control the police so that they're always on their side.

Umm, it wasn't peace between Rabin and Arafat, it was peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

You might have missed the part where Hamas was blowing up buses in order to derail the peace deal.And no peace deal had actually been reached. The Olso Accords had been signed of course and they still held.

Plus it wasn't the "end of that' at all.

Ehud Barak was later elected and a peace deal was brokered, also with Clinton, and Arafat refused to sign at the 2000 Camp David Summit. Arafat then launched the second intifada (the one they're trying to globalize...).

Mahmud Abbas later refused the deal offered under Ehud Olmert at Annapolis in 2007.

So, yeah, not the end of that. You should learn a bit of history, quite recent history actually.

Well, yes, because they are both freeing Palestine. Oh, and they just hate genocide - so by default anyone who stands in their way must be pro genocide (and a colonialist).

😅 fair point! I just really think these people have completely lost all sense of moral clarity. They are so willing to defend terrorists and violent thugs with sledgehammers, yet consider themselves the good guys? Absolute insanity.

Did he hit an unarmed person, though? I'm not condoning what he did in the slightest, but it would be extraordinary if any police officer went into a situation like that without so much as an asp.

He was found guilty.
The others were found guilty of criminal damage, but said they'd do it again. It achieved nothing for the people they say they want to help, nothing.

So if the police have their issue kit it’s ok to assault them?

sorry wrong post quoted!

So if the police have their issue kit it’s ok to assault them?
sorry wrong post initially quoted!

No worries.

There is a deep hatred of police (possibly imported from America). This female police officer was just responding to a call. They aren't armed with guns, many don't carry lasers.

This scum man assaulted her twice but apparently thats ok because 'Palestine'. A conflict thousands of miles away also used to justify acts of terror on Jewish people in the UK. Deluded with their ideology of Jewish hatred. Any other cause doesn't interest them, starving children in Sudan, not a peep of interest. You see this hatred on Saturday's in London, baying mobs apparently all freeing palestine.

You have misunderstood what 'sure' means. It means 'satisfied so that you are sure' which is just the modern way of saying 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It still doesn't mean beyond all doubt. It doesn't require 100% certainty. There is case law stating this.

Ironically the change in terms was because people didn't understand what 'beyond reasonable doubt' meant (as I said earlier) but clearly it has not had the desired effect!

Unless the defendant was literally caught with a smoking gun, how can anyone be 100% certain? There will always be at least a smidgen of doubt.

And don’t forget the ‘fashionable’, and oh so virtuous, cause.

A violent man inflicting serious damage to a woman under the guise of selfless compassion and claiming to be the victim? Things that never happen, but happen regularly for two.

Isn't it just.

GBH with intent is a very high standard of intent - it’s not just recklessness, it has to be actual intent.

If they prosecuted on that it may end up being unsafe.

This was an attack on the property of an arms manufacturer. The videos show extreme violence directed to the saboteurs who then reacted in self defence in a completely chaotic situation (the jury did not convict at the first trial)....

The actual fucking state of this comment. Exactly the same as those being ‘traumatised’ by the terrorist with a knife who had just stabbed people being kicked in the head by police trying to disarm him.

‘Wah wah wah the police were violent in subduing them’ what the fuck do you expect the police to do when trying to stop people who are armed and smashing shit up? ‘Oh but the protestors didn’t pose a threat’ one of them sledgehammered a police officer. I am perfectly happy for the police to use force to apprehend people who are swinging around sledgehammers. If it were Tommy Robinson’s lot the same people defending this twat would be shocked and outrage at violence against a female police officer who was on the floor.

A man broke a woman’s spine he had a sledgehammer, she was unarmed. It’s illegal and awful he should be in jail. I don’t see how he can be defended whether or not you agree with the reason why he was there.

It showed very clearly murderous industries are located in our midst.

It showed the idea / believe that the UK weren’t actively supporting a genocide was untrue.

It did quite a lot and not nothing

I suggest you research who the UK sells arms to, and the value of those sales. And remember that wherever the arms go to isn't necessarily where they end up. If you are going to get on your moral high horse about it, think again.

No idea how this degenerated into 'but Israel...'

No.

No.

No.

You do not hit people with sledgehammers.

This nutty sense of entitlement to commit violence towards people has to stop.

"beyond reasonable doubt" does not exist anymore
When did this change?

It showed that people are willing to defend someone bludgeoning, with a sledgehammer, a woman who was on the ground, if they think they are on the same side.

Despicable.