richrich
@ST16: You seem like the kind of "gender neutral" whom sits in a pub, lonesomely, exposing one fat hairy bosom whilst staring gormlessly into space. Perhaps the future.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
k-m
Sorry for empty posts, the site is playing up.
k-m
Sorry again, that's the site still playing up.
k-m
[QUOTE] [b]splicksplack wrote:[/b]
k-m...
I'm not a barrister so I couldn't represent you or anyone else. I'm just stating the law as it stands.
>> I understand. You speak from a position of authority then... Cool.
Depression is not a legal defence against assault. The law is the law and not what you may think is fair or common sense. There is an 'Insanity"defence but episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act would have to be proven. I very much doubt that would be possible when he appears to be carrying on with the rest of his life and a very demanding job.
>> Depression may not be a "legal defence", however, it may be a mitigation and is brought up very often by lawyers.
Charges are based on the whether the potential defendant (BM) would be found guilty, not on whether he has previous convictions. Otherwise no-one would ever get charged in the first place.
>> This is utter nonsense. I was referring to sentencing, not to pressing charges. You studied law and you didn't get it?? Lack of previous convictions is another mitigation and would be taken into account before passing sentence. Brian could argue he is a person of good character (a rather solid case at his age of 72 and not getting into trouble ever before) and it's not in the public interest to prosecute.
In this case there is clear video evidence of BM's assault on the cameraman. He is seen and heard making the threat which is a criminal act. The fact he asked the cameraman to stop filming does not give BM the right to commit a crime.
'Justice Of The Peace Courts' only exist in Scotland (where they can pass custodial sentences if required).
>> There are ASSAULTS and there are "assaults". This was obviously the lowest of the low on the scale of seriousness, he barely put his phone down. Whatever the courts are in England, this would be dealt with at the lowest possible level (if it went to court, of course).
You say "6 months imprisonment, what on earth are you talking about". If you read again what I said I merely pointed out that the maximum sentence for assault is 6 months (not what BM would get if tried). This was to show how serious the law regards assault. And of course "Judges see worse every day in the courtroom" but that does not negate lesser crimes.
>> As above. You repeat words like "crime", "assault" and make references to imprisonment, like Brian actually punched anyone to a pulp. Contrary to what you seem to think, judges have common sense too.
You also say "if the police were stupid enough to report it in the first place'. It is the cameraman who would report it. To the police. And then based on the evidence the police would ask the cameraman if he wants to press charges. That is the cameraman's decision, not the police. It's then up to the prosecutor based on the (clear) evidence.
>> And who reports crimes to the Prosecutor? The police, right? Average Joe cannot go to the prosecutor's office and say, "Ooh, this awful Brian May assaulted, let's bring a case against him". The police do not have an obligation to report everything to the prosecutor.
Finally you say "Brian might have pointed to a loophole in the law". Please elaborate because filming a celebrity in public for a few minutes, especially when he is in his celebrity role (signing autographs), is not an offence.
>> I am not an expert on this, but I was referring to the fact the cameraman was initially using his camera and then switched to a mobile phone as if he was making a private recording at this stage. I am not sure if you can film people like Brian even if they ask you not to do it, just because they are a celebrity.
But assault is.[/QUOTE]
>> Case dismissed.
k-m...
I'm not a barrister so I couldn't represent you or anyone else. I'm just stating the law as it stands.
>> I understand. You speak from a position of authority then... Cool.
Depression is not a legal defence against assault. The law is the law and not what you may think is fair or common sense. There is an 'Insanity"defence but episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act would have to be proven. I very much doubt that would be possible when he appears to be carrying on with the rest of his life and a very demanding job.
>> Depression may not be a "legal defence", however, it may be a mitigation and is brought up very often by lawyers.
Charges are based on the whether the potential defendant (BM) would be found guilty, not on whether he has previous convictions. Otherwise no-one would ever get charged in the first place.
>> This is utter nonsense. I was referring to sentencing, not to pressing charges. You studied law and you didn't get it?? Lack of previous convictions is another mitigation and would be taken into account before passing sentence. Brian could argue he is a person of good character (a rather solid case at his age of 72 and not getting into trouble ever before) and it's not in the public interest to prosecute.
In this case there is clear video evidence of BM's assault on the cameraman. He is seen and heard making the threat which is a criminal act. The fact he asked the cameraman to stop filming does not give BM the right to commit a crime.
'Justice Of The Peace Courts' only exist in Scotland (where they can pass custodial sentences if required).
>> There are ASSAULTS and there are "assaults". This was obviously the lowest of the low on the scale of seriousness, he barely put his phone down. Whatever the courts are in England, this would be dealt with at the lowest possible level (if it went to court, of course).
You say "6 months imprisonment, what on earth are you talking about". If you read again what I said I merely pointed out that the maximum sentence for assault is 6 months (not what BM would get if tried). This was to show how serious the law regards assault. And of course "Judges see worse every day in the courtroom" but that does not negate lesser crimes.
>> As above. You repeat words like "crime", "assault" and make references to imprisonment, like Brian actually punched anyone to a pulp. Contrary to what you seem to think, judges have common sense too.
You also say "if the police were stupid enough to report it in the first place'. It is the cameraman who would report it. To the police. And then based on the evidence the police would ask the cameraman if he wants to press charges. That is the cameraman's decision, not the police. It's then up to the prosecutor based on the (clear) evidence.
>> And who reports crimes to the Prosecutor? The police, right? Average Joe cannot go to the prosecutor's office and say, "Ooh, this awful Brian May assaulted, let's bring a case against him". The police do not have an obligation to report everything to the prosecutor.
Finally you say "Brian might have pointed to a loophole in the law". Please elaborate because filming a celebrity in public for a few minutes, especially when he is in his celebrity role (signing autographs), is not an offence.
>> I am not an expert on this, but I was referring to the fact the cameraman was initially using his camera and then switched to a mobile phone as if he was making a private recording at this stage. I am not sure if you can film people like Brian even if they ask you not to do it, just because they are a celebrity.
But assault is.[/QUOTE]
>> Case dismissed.
runner_70
[QUOTE] [b]splicksplack wrote:[/b]
It appears that the only thing that the cameraman did was film BM when BM asked him not to. It goes with the territory. If it upsets him then he can comfort himself in the knowledge of what else fame and fortune has brought.
The camerman was some distance away from him when BM said “You put it down now or something ugly happens. Do you understand?”
I studied law and, although I am not sure about Australian law, in the UK to say the above would be regarded as ‘a threat of impending violence” (whether by BM, his security or some other means). It is the criminal act of assault under Section 39 of the CJA 1988 (if extended to an actual physical attack it would also be battery). If tried, punishable by a max of 6 months imprisonment. It is clear that there is no defence available, (i.e. no self defence etc)
(A quick Google confirms that in Australia 'common assault is usually proved when an argument with another individual was accompanied by threats’.)
I’m sure Mr. Beach could advise although I suspect Contract law is his speciality.
BM is a world famous celebrity and the cameraman was just doing his job. BM had absolutely no right to threaten him and he owes him an apology.[/QUOTE]
He should sue him :) At least some voice of reason on here......MAy and his sheep will disagree though :)
It appears that the only thing that the cameraman did was film BM when BM asked him not to. It goes with the territory. If it upsets him then he can comfort himself in the knowledge of what else fame and fortune has brought.
The camerman was some distance away from him when BM said “You put it down now or something ugly happens. Do you understand?”
I studied law and, although I am not sure about Australian law, in the UK to say the above would be regarded as ‘a threat of impending violence” (whether by BM, his security or some other means). It is the criminal act of assault under Section 39 of the CJA 1988 (if extended to an actual physical attack it would also be battery). If tried, punishable by a max of 6 months imprisonment. It is clear that there is no defence available, (i.e. no self defence etc)
(A quick Google confirms that in Australia 'common assault is usually proved when an argument with another individual was accompanied by threats’.)
I’m sure Mr. Beach could advise although I suspect Contract law is his speciality.
BM is a world famous celebrity and the cameraman was just doing his job. BM had absolutely no right to threaten him and he owes him an apology.[/QUOTE]
He should sue him :) At least some voice of reason on here......MAy and his sheep will disagree though :)
Biggest Band On The Planet
Its hilarious seeing Brian act the hard man.
runner_70
[QUOTE] [b]Biggest Band On The Planet wrote:[/b]
Its hilarious seeing Brian act the hard man.[/QUOTE]
He should venture into comedy. Musically he is done since 1998
Its hilarious seeing Brian act the hard man.[/QUOTE]
He should venture into comedy. Musically he is done since 1998
brENsKi
well at least he (Brian) has contributed to the music world in the last 20 years! - that's a million times more contribution than those who criticise him.
Saint Jiub
[QUOTE] [b]ST16 wrote:[/b]
@Siant Jiub That was not my bad grammar i provided it was actually Brian May's statement that i quoted !
So are you going to tell Brian he is also uneducated then?[/QUOTE]
I know that was not your statement. This was Brian's statement:
"Channel 7’s behaviour. But I haven’t been able to trace the other fans … send me message if your read this, guys."
Brian had ONE typo.
You on the other hand, often have several grammatic and spelling errors in the same post. You often repeat these same errors ad nauseum in later posts.
You are incapable of learning.
Your poor grammar is recurrent, hilarious, and legendary, as well as consistent with your poor character traits.
Your continued repetition of poor grammar, is much more abhorrent than occasional typos or isolated misspellings.
@Siant Jiub That was not my bad grammar i provided it was actually Brian May's statement that i quoted !
So are you going to tell Brian he is also uneducated then?[/QUOTE]
I know that was not your statement. This was Brian's statement:
"Channel 7’s behaviour. But I haven’t been able to trace the other fans … send me message if your read this, guys."
Brian had ONE typo.
You on the other hand, often have several grammatic and spelling errors in the same post. You often repeat these same errors ad nauseum in later posts.
You are incapable of learning.
Your poor grammar is recurrent, hilarious, and legendary, as well as consistent with your poor character traits.
Your continued repetition of poor grammar, is much more abhorrent than occasional typos or isolated misspellings.
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]splicksplack wrote:[/b]
It appears that the only thing that the cameraman did was film BM when BM asked him not to. It goes with the territory. If it upsets him then he can comfort himself in the knowledge of what else fame and fortune has brought.
The camerman was some distance away from him when BM said “You put it down now or something ugly happens. Do you understand?”
I studied law and, although I am not sure about Australian law, in the UK to say the above would be regarded as ‘a threat of impending violence” (whether by BM, his security or some other means). It is the criminal act of assault under Section 39 of the CJA 1988 (if extended to an actual physical attack it would also be battery). If tried, punishable by a max of 6 months imprisonment. It is clear that there is no defence available, (i.e. no self defence etc)
(A quick Google confirms that in Australia 'common assault is usually proved when an argument with another individual was accompanied by threats’.)
I’m sure Mr. Beach could advise although I suspect Contract law is his speciality.
BM is a world famous celebrity and the cameraman was just doing his job. BM had absolutely no right to threaten him and he owes him an apology.[/QUOTE]
He should sue him :) At least some voice of reason on here......MAy and his sheep will disagree though :)[/QUOTE]
You're both talking crap.
Calling someone a parasite, telling them to go away and saying somethings ugly is going to happen are not direct threats of violence.
Brian asked the guy to stop filming after he ad filmed for a few minutes. He did that media thing where they say ok but carry on. Brian wanted some private time with the fans, not an unreadable request and one that the fans appear to have backed.
Brian made a grab for the phone. He didn't hit the guy, he didn't cause any damage and he didn't make any slanderous comments, unlike half of runner_70's posts.
So what exactly are you expecting Brian to be sued for.
The other telling thing is channel 7 ran the edited version of the footage but have said and done nothing about runner_70's alleged assault or splicksplack's insightful reading of Australian common law.
Splicksplack you studied law, good for you. I learnt to fly, it doesn't mean I can fly a Typhoon euro fighter any more than you seem to be able to talk much more sense than rocker boy Weckwerth_70
[QUOTE] [b]splicksplack wrote:[/b]
It appears that the only thing that the cameraman did was film BM when BM asked him not to. It goes with the territory. If it upsets him then he can comfort himself in the knowledge of what else fame and fortune has brought.
The camerman was some distance away from him when BM said “You put it down now or something ugly happens. Do you understand?”
I studied law and, although I am not sure about Australian law, in the UK to say the above would be regarded as ‘a threat of impending violence” (whether by BM, his security or some other means). It is the criminal act of assault under Section 39 of the CJA 1988 (if extended to an actual physical attack it would also be battery). If tried, punishable by a max of 6 months imprisonment. It is clear that there is no defence available, (i.e. no self defence etc)
(A quick Google confirms that in Australia 'common assault is usually proved when an argument with another individual was accompanied by threats’.)
I’m sure Mr. Beach could advise although I suspect Contract law is his speciality.
BM is a world famous celebrity and the cameraman was just doing his job. BM had absolutely no right to threaten him and he owes him an apology.[/QUOTE]
He should sue him :) At least some voice of reason on here......MAy and his sheep will disagree though :)[/QUOTE]
You're both talking crap.
Calling someone a parasite, telling them to go away and saying somethings ugly is going to happen are not direct threats of violence.
Brian asked the guy to stop filming after he ad filmed for a few minutes. He did that media thing where they say ok but carry on. Brian wanted some private time with the fans, not an unreadable request and one that the fans appear to have backed.
Brian made a grab for the phone. He didn't hit the guy, he didn't cause any damage and he didn't make any slanderous comments, unlike half of runner_70's posts.
So what exactly are you expecting Brian to be sued for.
The other telling thing is channel 7 ran the edited version of the footage but have said and done nothing about runner_70's alleged assault or splicksplack's insightful reading of Australian common law.
Splicksplack you studied law, good for you. I learnt to fly, it doesn't mean I can fly a Typhoon euro fighter any more than you seem to be able to talk much more sense than rocker boy Weckwerth_70
aristide1
You miss the whole point of this incident - it's about the shabby personality of Brian.
He is not an innocent caught in this game of public exposure, his whole life was dedicated to gain more fame, more money, more recognition (even in nonadjacent fields).
Now he demands privacy. It's impossible and ludicrous, especially if the action takes place on the sidewalk.
He is not an innocent caught in this game of public exposure, his whole life was dedicated to gain more fame, more money, more recognition (even in nonadjacent fields).
Now he demands privacy. It's impossible and ludicrous, especially if the action takes place on the sidewalk.
Star*
Brian is arrogant and a joke.
If he wanted privacy then take the fans indoors some where not outside in public where anyone is free to film regardless of what Brian wanted! Gets me annoyed because on one hand May wants publicity for badger protests and Lambert nonsense then now he kicks off because cameras are showing an interest in him arriving in Brisbane. The man is deluded.
If he wanted privacy then take the fans indoors some where not outside in public where anyone is free to film regardless of what Brian wanted! Gets me annoyed because on one hand May wants publicity for badger protests and Lambert nonsense then now he kicks off because cameras are showing an interest in him arriving in Brisbane. The man is deluded.
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]
You miss the whole point of this incident - it's about the shabby personality of Brian.
He is not an innocent caught in this game of public exposure, his whole life was dedicated to gain more fame, more money, more recognition (even in nonadjacent fields).
Now he demands privacy. It's impossible and ludicrous, especially if the action takes place on the sidewalk.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, if you look at the encounter from that point of view.
However if you read Brian's account of the situation he was thinking I the fans and those fans and their parents are very much on Brian's side.
The fact the camera man was asked and agreed to stop filming but then carried on was the problem here, not the fact that he had filmed something, but the fact he wasn't willing to allow Brian and the fans, some of who apparently were young, a few minutes away from media glare.
The press/media should accept bounderies, if they don't or you are not willing to accept that you end up with the situation Freddie had around his house, I know this is extreme in comparison, where the press can do what they want regardless of personal feelings.
The facts still stand the guy got a few minutes of footage he was asked politely to stop and give the fans and Brian a few minutes but basically had the attitude of fuck you I'm going to carry on.
You miss the whole point of this incident - it's about the shabby personality of Brian.
He is not an innocent caught in this game of public exposure, his whole life was dedicated to gain more fame, more money, more recognition (even in nonadjacent fields).
Now he demands privacy. It's impossible and ludicrous, especially if the action takes place on the sidewalk.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, if you look at the encounter from that point of view.
However if you read Brian's account of the situation he was thinking I the fans and those fans and their parents are very much on Brian's side.
The fact the camera man was asked and agreed to stop filming but then carried on was the problem here, not the fact that he had filmed something, but the fact he wasn't willing to allow Brian and the fans, some of who apparently were young, a few minutes away from media glare.
The press/media should accept bounderies, if they don't or you are not willing to accept that you end up with the situation Freddie had around his house, I know this is extreme in comparison, where the press can do what they want regardless of personal feelings.
The facts still stand the guy got a few minutes of footage he was asked politely to stop and give the fans and Brian a few minutes but basically had the attitude of fuck you I'm going to carry on.
Star*
There is no law which suggests camera men have to stop filming outside, so therefore Brian should have got back in his car and left.
One thing about Brian is that he is like many famous people in that he wants camera men when it suits him well unfortunately it does not work on that level.
You take the rough with the smooth when you are famous or do what May did and throw your toys out of your pram and rant.
One thing about Brian is that he is like many famous people in that he wants camera men when it suits him well unfortunately it does not work on that level.
You take the rough with the smooth when you are famous or do what May did and throw your toys out of your pram and rant.
runner_70
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]splicksplack wrote:[/b]
It appears that the only thing that the cameraman did was film BM when BM asked him not to. It goes with the territory. If it upsets him then he can comfort himself in the knowledge of what else fame and fortune has brought.
The camerman was some distance away from him when BM said “You put it down now or something ugly happens. Do you understand?”
I studied law and, although I am not sure about Australian law, in the UK to say the above would be regarded as ‘a threat of impending violence” (whether by BM, his security or some other means). It is the criminal act of assault under Section 39 of the CJA 1988 (if extended to an actual physical attack it would also be battery). If tried, punishable by a max of 6 months imprisonment. It is clear that there is no defence available, (i.e. no self defence etc)
(A quick Google confirms that in Australia 'common assault is usually proved when an argument with another individual was accompanied by threats’.)
I’m sure Mr. Beach could advise although I suspect Contract law is his speciality.
BM is a world famous celebrity and the cameraman was just doing his job. BM had absolutely no right to threaten him and he owes him an apology.[/QUOTE]
He should sue him :) At least some voice of reason on here......MAy and his sheep will disagree though :)[/QUOTE]
You're both talking crap.
Calling someone a parasite, telling them to go away and saying somethings ugly is going to happen are not direct threats of violence.
Brian asked the guy to stop filming after he ad filmed for a few minutes. He did that media thing where they say ok but carry on. Brian wanted some private time with the fans, not an unreadable request and one that the fans appear to have backed.
Brian made a grab for the phone. He didn't hit the guy, he didn't cause any damage and he didn't make any slanderous comments, unlike half of runner_70's posts.
So what exactly are you expecting Brian to be sued for.
The other telling thing is channel 7 ran the edited version of the footage but have said and done nothing about runner_70's alleged assault or splicksplack's insightful reading of Australian common law.
Splicksplack you studied law, good for you. I learnt to fly, it doesn't mean I can fly a Typhoon euro fighter any more than you seem to be able to talk much more sense than rocker boy Weckwerth_70 [/QUOTE]
May threatened the guy with violence or what exactly do you think he meant with "something ugly"??? Giving him flowers for Valentine's day?
And he surely hit him. You can see AND hear. The guy was in fear. If the sec guy wasn't there he would have slapped him even more. How deep are you into May's ass????
[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]splicksplack wrote:[/b]
It appears that the only thing that the cameraman did was film BM when BM asked him not to. It goes with the territory. If it upsets him then he can comfort himself in the knowledge of what else fame and fortune has brought.
The camerman was some distance away from him when BM said “You put it down now or something ugly happens. Do you understand?”
I studied law and, although I am not sure about Australian law, in the UK to say the above would be regarded as ‘a threat of impending violence” (whether by BM, his security or some other means). It is the criminal act of assault under Section 39 of the CJA 1988 (if extended to an actual physical attack it would also be battery). If tried, punishable by a max of 6 months imprisonment. It is clear that there is no defence available, (i.e. no self defence etc)
(A quick Google confirms that in Australia 'common assault is usually proved when an argument with another individual was accompanied by threats’.)
I’m sure Mr. Beach could advise although I suspect Contract law is his speciality.
BM is a world famous celebrity and the cameraman was just doing his job. BM had absolutely no right to threaten him and he owes him an apology.[/QUOTE]
He should sue him :) At least some voice of reason on here......MAy and his sheep will disagree though :)[/QUOTE]
You're both talking crap.
Calling someone a parasite, telling them to go away and saying somethings ugly is going to happen are not direct threats of violence.
Brian asked the guy to stop filming after he ad filmed for a few minutes. He did that media thing where they say ok but carry on. Brian wanted some private time with the fans, not an unreadable request and one that the fans appear to have backed.
Brian made a grab for the phone. He didn't hit the guy, he didn't cause any damage and he didn't make any slanderous comments, unlike half of runner_70's posts.
So what exactly are you expecting Brian to be sued for.
The other telling thing is channel 7 ran the edited version of the footage but have said and done nothing about runner_70's alleged assault or splicksplack's insightful reading of Australian common law.
Splicksplack you studied law, good for you. I learnt to fly, it doesn't mean I can fly a Typhoon euro fighter any more than you seem to be able to talk much more sense than rocker boy Weckwerth_70 [/QUOTE]
May threatened the guy with violence or what exactly do you think he meant with "something ugly"??? Giving him flowers for Valentine's day?
And he surely hit him. You can see AND hear. The guy was in fear. If the sec guy wasn't there he would have slapped him even more. How deep are you into May's ass????