Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
It's a cut and paste from the CPS website.
|
Funny, if I cut and paste the relevant sections of which they're being charged under I get the following:
Quote:
Offence
Racially/religiously aggravated harassment/alarm/distress (s.31(1)(c) CDA)
Maximum Penalty - aggravated form
Magistrates' court - fine up to level 4
Maximum Penalty - basic form
Magistrates' court - fine up to level 3
Notes
Can only be tried in magistrates' court in either aggravated or basic form. Need to put charges for both aggravated and basic offence.
|
Section 5 of the POA isn't mentioned.
Perhaps your mouse slipped?
Or perhaps you were quoting guidelines relating to something the couple aren't being charged with, say perhaps the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nomadking
The point is to stop the incitement taking place in order to prevent further(in the future) violence. If removing troublemakers ignites a riot then the protest shouldn't have been allowed to form in the first place. After all the 'peaceful'  organisers/participants would want any troublemakers removed. |
So now you're advocating police action without evidence just incase a crime happens?
Or are you against people's right to protest?
Both perhaps?
There's a right to protest, crimes were committed during that protest, you would rather the police ignited a riot and the resulting damage/injuries that come with riots, than the police gathering evidence and acting on that evidence, correct?