Mike Amesbury

The bloke was made a example of. This mps committed assult and violent disorder let see his sentance.

 

He wasn't made an example of, he was sentenced in accordance with guidelines that existed well before the offence after pleading guilty. Only one person is responsible for it being a life sentence and that person is Peter Lynch.

 

I will again point out the correlation between poor education and extremely w**k political views on here.

 

One person by himself cannot commit violent disorder. It requires at least 3 people according to the Public Order Act 1986.

And, BTW, its "MP", "assault" and "sentence". Your computer or phone both have spell checkers. Please learn to use them.

 

No he wasn't. He was charged with violent disorder and pled guilty. He confessed to his crime in court and was sentenced accordingly.

He was welcome to plead innocent. He would have had his day in court to prove his case. Although, he could have faced more charges and a longer sentence if he had.

 

You keep mentioning he assaulted police which is false. He was never charged or convicted of that. Innocent until proven guilty?

 

Still a quite serious assult on a person who offered zero threat by the looks.

Thanks for that was trying not to reply to you after yours and dwlc defending of huw Edwards but you keep stating false information to push your political view.

 

You're either purposefully obtuse or unknowingly ignorant. I've not defended Huw Edwards at all, and you know this. The sentencing guides have been explained over and over. You've had it mentioned multiple times that Lynch pleaded guilty. How do you explain that? Or did Keir Starmer slip through the back door, turn off the recordings, twist his arm and make him confess? I shouldn't joke as you might suddenly think thats true!

By the way, weren't you a constant crusader for not seeing political comment on the BBS? What changed your mind? You post so much politics now you could become a daily heil columnist.

 

Non violent? Starmer Kangaroo Court?

Oh dear.

 

“By the looks”

The guy didn’t raise his hand in this video, I’ll concede that.

You’ve absolutely no idea what he’s said and threatened prior though do you? Why did the person start recording the video? They must have known something was going to happen.

Amesbury also had someone convicted of stalking and harassing him last year (I don’t think this is the same guy. Apparently this was someone arguing with him about a bridge being closed for repairs). But he was bound to be on edge having seen commons colleagues attacked and murdered by constituents and having a history of someone stalking him.

He is finished as an MP I’d suggest. He may be convicted and imprisoned. That’s up to the police and cps to charge and the judiciary to decide.

But they can’t fast track a conviction unless he just pleads guilty - which seems unlikely with sound legal advice and the fact he will very likely have been given extremely high provocation.

The fact he shouted about ‘threatening’ him afterwards, as opposed to just arguing/pissing him off - he was clearly feeling threatened. You don’t know what that threat was any more than I do.

If he’s not convicted it has nothing to do with Keir Starmer, so called two tier policing or the convictions of racist rioters elsewhere. It will be because there was evidence of innocence, or at least insufficient evidence to convict.

 

He should be punished for assault - in line with sentencing guidelines.

Just as Peter Lynch was - a man who PLEADED GUILTY to what he was charged with.

This obsession of comparing crimes is bizarre - but not unexpected.

I mean personally, I can't believe Eric Cantona got away with it. Attacking a bloke that was caught on camera.

 

You said "all huw did was open some pictures" your words not mine.
I go games I post about football if something winds me up ill post about that. Some on here yourself included don't go games and just push your agenda.

 

My actual post was this: "He was part of a racist mob. His simple attendance made him complicit. That mob attempted to burn down a hotel with hundreds of people at risk. Huw Edwards opened some pictures that were sent to him. As sick as that is, I don't see how that is anywhere as serious an offence as the first one."

So please don't edit and misrepresent my actual words.

As for not attending, you know the reason for that don't you? Yet further information you are misrepresenting and i have to say, even for you, that's pretty twisted to keep trying to score points that I don't go to matches because my wifes immune system is compromised and she nearly died of covid.

It's all the more obvious why you didn't like others posting political posts. Because they didn't mirror your narrow warped version of politics, and as you often see with the far right and populists... they try and silence reason and sense while they wail about not having a right to free speech. I've never had a positive opinion of you, but you've managed to downgrade that opinion even further now you've finally shown your true self.

 

There's a ignore button.. think I'll use it. I suggest you do the same. Don't reply to me again football or otherwise.

 

Truth hurts, clearly.

And if I see your mistruths and grim views and misrepresentation, I shall call it out as I see fit. I mean, you believe in free speech don't you?

 

You stated before that you have me on ignore.

So presumably you cannot stomach my own free speech. Nor call it out as you see fit. Nor read this post.

Just pointing out a certain hypocrisy, that's all.

 

Mistruth would be claiming a man assaulted police when he was never convicted or charged with that.

 

There you go misrepresenting me again. Odd how you can see my posts if I'm on ignore. Most odd.

 

Without context of how matters reached the stage of disagreement caught on footage, it is too early to be convicting and sentencing.

What was captured does not play particularly well for the MP, he appearing to be the aggressor. He may have, and may still argue self-defence, fearing violence was to be used against him, but the subsequent blows to the male on the ground would make it difficult to argue that what he did was reasonable and necessary.

That he appeared under the influence will do him no favours either. These type of pointless, alcohol fuelled encounters are ten a penny sadly and every now and again end in fatality, the so called ‘one punch manslaughter’.

Best way forward is to let due process take its course. There can be no point whatever in comparing sentences for assault with those recently imposed for Riot and Violent Disorder which will always carry a large element of deterrence given the gravity of those events.

Judges are bound by guidelines when sentencing most offences, working within a range according to levels of harm and culpability.