O/T MP Mike Amesbury Video

[mellowmiller]

stansmate, go easy you don't know all the background pal. One video I've seen clearly here's him say, 'You won't don't do that again"

Now is that a statement of him being attacked but he got the better of the attacker? Or, is he saying you won't batter a single Mother again?

Massive interpretations pal and easily twisted by the media......chill pal

It's true we don't know all the background but:

1. He turned himself in to the police.
2. He kept throwing punches at the guy when he was on the floor.
3. He's an MP so should be setting better standards of behaviour.

If he resigns or is sacked it will be interesting to see what his former constituents think of the party he represents when they vote.

[flourbasher]

It's true we don't know all the background but:

1. He turned himself in to the police.
2. He kept throwing punches at the guy when he was on the floor.
3. He's an MP so should be setting better standards of behaviour.

If he resigns or is sacked it will be interesting to see what his former constituents think of the party he represents when they vote.

It certainly doesn’t look good but he may have had reason to do the things you mention
Under the circumstances, making contact with the Police is what most reasonable people would have done, guilty or not.
The guy on the floor could have made repeated threats as to what he was going to do when he got up.
Bad behaviour or self defence?

None of us know yet

[KerrAvon]

It's true we don't know all the background but:

1. He turned himself in to the police.
2. He kept throwing punches at the guy when he was on the floor.
3. He's an MP so should be setting better standards of behaviour.

If he resigns or is sacked it will be interesting to see what his former constituents think of the party he represents when they vote.

1. This would have the capacity to give him minor assistance in a trial: I reported my involvement to the police because I’d done ‘nowt wrong, but knew that the Tory press would spin against me’.

2. The Queensberry Rules have no bearing upon the law of self-defence. If a person perceives that they are under threat, that might not end simply because their ‘opponent’ has been knocked to the ground.

3. This is a mixture of fact and opinion. The fact that he is an MP is a factor that could weigh heavily in his favour in a trial. Two MPs have been murdered in the last 8 years and I suspect that every MP receives regular threats from people who have been radicalised by drivel that social media algorithms have pushed on them. That might well create a heightened awareness of risk (it would for me), which would be relevant circumstance for a court assessing a plea of self-defence.

As I have said above, I am like everyone else who was not directly involved - I have no idea of the full circumstances and whether the bloke is guilty or not. That is a matter which a court might have to determine in due course when it hears from both sides and from any eye witnesses in addition to looking at the whole of the video evidence as opposed to that which that bastion of truth, impartiality and fairness, The Daily Mail , has chosen to publish.

He could only be ‘sacked’ by a recall petition, which could only be triggered if he were sent to prison. That is unlikely unless significant injury was caused or he has relevant previous convictions.

[Brin]

1. This would have the capacity to give him minor assistance in a trial: I reported my involvement to the police because I’d done ‘nowt wrong, but knew that the Tory press would spin against me’.

2. The Queensberry Rules have no bearing upon the law of self-defence. If a person perceives that they are under threat, that might not end simply because their ‘opponent’ has been knocked to the ground.

3. This is a mixture of fact and opinion. The fact that he is an MP is a factor that could weigh heavily in his favour in a trial. Two MPs have been murdered in the last 8 years and I suspect that every MP receives regular threats from people who have been radicalised by drivel that social media algorithms have pushed on them. That might well create a heightened awareness of risk (it would for me), which would be relevant circumstance for a court assessing a plea of self-defence.

As I have said above, I am like everyone else who was not directly involved - I have no idea of the full circumstances and whether the bloke is guilty or not. That is a matter which a court might have to determine in due course when it hears from both sides and from any eye witnesses in addition to looking at the whole of the video evidence as opposed to that which that bastion of truth, impartiality and fairness, The Daily Mail , has chosen to publish.

He could only be ‘sacked’ by a recall petition, which could only be triggered if he were sent to prison. That is unlikely unless significant injury was caused or he has relevant previous convictions.

Quick question. Is he allowed to stand as an MP, if he has relevant previous convictions?

[mellowmiller]

1. This would have the capacity to give him minor assistance in a trial: I reported my involvement to the police because I’d done ‘nowt wrong, but knew that the Tory press would spin against me’.

2. The Queensberry Rules have no bearing upon the law of self-defence. If a person perceives that they are under threat, that might not end simply because their ‘opponent’ has been knocked to the ground.

3. This is a mixture of fact and opinion. The fact that he is an MP is a factor that could weigh heavily in his favour in a trial. Two MPs have been murdered in the last 8 years and I suspect that every MP receives regular threats from people who have been radicalised by drivel that social media algorithms have pushed on them. That might well create a heightened awareness of risk (it would for me), which would be relevant circumstance for a court assessing a plea of self-defence.

As I have said above, I am like everyone else who was not directly involved - I have no idea of the full circumstances and whether the bloke is guilty or not. That is a matter which a court might have to determine in due course when it hears from both sides and from any eye witnesses in addition to looking at the whole of the video evidence as opposed to that which that bastion of truth, impartiality and fairness, The Daily Mail , has chosen to publish.

He could only be ‘sacked’ by a recall petition, which could only be triggered if he were sent to prison. That is unlikely unless significant injury was caused or he has relevant previous convictions.

Everyone is innocent until proved guilty.
Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
Allegedly 🤔.

[Lasterman]

1. This would have the capacity to give him minor assistance in a trial: I reported my involvement to the police because I’d done ‘nowt wrong, but knew that the Tory press would spin against me’.

2. The Queensberry Rules have no bearing upon the law of self-defence. If a person perceives that they are under threat, that might not end simply because their ‘opponent’ has been knocked to the ground.

3. This is a mixture of fact and opinion. The fact that he is an MP is a factor that could weigh heavily in his favour in a trial. Two MPs have been murdered in the last 8 years and I suspect that every MP receives regular threats from people who have been radicalised by drivel that social media algorithms have pushed on them. That might well create a heightened awareness of risk (it would for me), which would be relevant circumstance for a court assessing a plea of self-defence.

As I have said above, I am like everyone else who was not directly involved - I have no idea of the full circumstances and whether the bloke is guilty or not. That is a matter which a court might have to determine in due course when it hears from both sides and from any eye witnesses in addition to looking at the whole of the video evidence as opposed to that which that bastion of truth, impartiality and fairness, The Daily Mail , has chosen to publish.

He could only be ‘sacked’ by a recall petition, which could only be triggered if he were sent to prison. That is unlikely unless significant injury was caused or he has relevant previous convictions.

Perhaps a little selective with your legal knowledge there. Whilst the Queensbury Rules do not apply, someone is only allowed to defend themselves up to the point where the threat has been neutralised. It's very clear from the video that at the point the MP punched the guy, there was no threat. He was standing in a neutral position with his hands in his pockets. There was certainly no threat once he was on the ground. Both before the first punch, and after it, the MP could have walked away. It doesn't really matter what happened in the minutes leading up to this.

[frogmiller]

It looks like he was threatened when you look at this video

https://x.com/guidofawkes/status/185...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

[KerrAvon]

Perhaps a little selective with your legal knowledge there. Whilst the Queensbury Rules do not apply, someone is only allowed to defend themselves up to the point where the threat has been neutralised. It's very clear from the video that at the point the MP punched the guy, there was no threat. He was standing in a neutral position with his hands in his pockets. There was certainly no threat once he was on the ground. Both before the first punch, and after it, the MP could have walked away. It doesn't really matter what happened in the minutes leading up to this.

In simple terms, a person is entitled to use reasonable force in all the circumstances in self-defence.

A quick hypothetical for you in light of your comments: - a bloke approaches you in the street who appears to have a beef with you. He's aggressive and says, 'I'm going to stab you up you c*nt' and reaches into his pocket.

On the basis of your post, would you think: 'Well, he's being very aggressive said he'd stab me, but he's put his hand in his pocket, so there's no problem'?

I don't think that you would.

And suppose you decided to hit him on the basis that you feared he was reaching for a knife, would you then think 'well he might be tooled up, but he's on the floor now, so all is well with the world'.

I don't think that you would.

What happened before the incident may be extremely relevant if it had a bearing upon the level of threat that the MP perceived.

Are you seriously saying that it would have no bearing upon the situation if the bloke had been following him for 200 yards whilst threatening to kill him?

I do this sh1t for a living and never accept a view based upon very limited information.

[KerrAvon]

Quick question. Is he allowed to stand as an MP, if he has relevant previous convictions?

I don't believe that there are any restrictions, but don't know for sure.

[Brin]

I don't believe that there are any restrictions, but don't know for sure.

Thanks for replying. It's just one thing that crossed my mind and I too wasn't sure if you had to have a non convictional record to stand as an MP.