|
|
Post by musik on Apr 6, 2019 12:15:51 GMT
What are the punishment for attacking blue light staff (police, ambulance drivers, fire brigade and so on) in Britain?
In Sweden we went 180° over night: from a bun and a coke if they said they were sorry, to up to a prison sentence for life!
Morgan Johansson declared it yesterday. The SocialDemocrats obviously got tired of it all!
I'm that surprised, I actually had to check thrice if it was a delayed April Fools Day joke.
It wasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Apr 6, 2019 12:25:07 GMT
Coincidentally theyve changed the laws over here in NL this week to imprisonment- not sure how long though
Personally if I was in charge it would the death penalty followed by electrocution
|
|
|
|
Post by telfordstoke on Apr 6, 2019 20:23:20 GMT
Not strong enough here IMO, a friend is paramedic and had nose broken when head butted by a pissheas he was trying to help. The guy got a fine due to fact he was pissed , which was mitigation enough apparently
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Apr 6, 2019 21:03:24 GMT
Coincidentally theyve changed the laws over here in NL this week to imprisonment- not sure how long though Personally if I was in charge it would the death penalty followed by electrocution You'd electrocute someone after they are dead? Are you from Texas? |
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Apr 6, 2019 21:07:00 GMT
Punch Grealish get 14weeks punch a copper or nurse get new trainers and counciling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Apr 6, 2019 21:44:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Apr 6, 2019 22:25:01 GMT
Coincidentally theyve changed the laws over here in NL this week to imprisonment- not sure how long though Personally if I was in charge it would the death penalty followed by electrocution You'd electrocute someone after they are dead? Are you from Texas? Firm but fair lordb, firm but fair 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Apr 8, 2019 21:12:40 GMT
An assault is an assault, it should be treated the same for everyone. If you were to raise the punishment for all then I'd be happy with that though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bojan Mackey on Apr 9, 2019 8:38:56 GMT
Should result in being blacklisted.
Got pissed again and fell over? Had an accident?
Tough, let someone who isn’t a complete cunt get the treatment and suffer in pain like the rodents they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Apr 9, 2019 10:30:11 GMT
Should result in being blacklisted. Got pissed again and fell over? Had an accident? Tough, let someone who isn’t a complete cunt get the treatment and suffer in pain like the rodents they are. The staff should all carry Tasers the scum would think twice about attacking them then. |
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 9, 2019 15:07:03 GMT
An assault is an assault, it should be treated the same for everyone. If you were to raise the punishment for all then I'd be happy with that though.
Disagree myself. No assault to anyone should just be treated the same anyway i.e. if i get into a pissed up argument with someone, calling him and his family all the names under the sun and get a pasting, then that's technically assault. If a fireman tries to restrain someone because they're actively interfering in and preventing them from saving someone else's life and then takes a pasting for it, you're telling me that both of those instances should be judged the same as they're both "assault" after all?
Ideally, no members of the public would ever assault anyone anyway, but there is a difference between me voluntarily placing myself in that position with pissed up or sober people and those that HAVE to be in that position to do their job (and the person/people they're helping may not even be the person that assaults them, just someone getting in the way etc). They should be protected for all of our sakes.
I can only presume that those who think there should be no extra protection are those who have never needed to rely upon the help and aid these people give to those of us who really need it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Apr 9, 2019 15:16:37 GMT
An assault is an assault, it should be treated the same for everyone. If you were to raise the punishment for all then I'd be happy with that though. Disagree myself. No assault to anyone should just be treated the same anyway i.e. if i get into a pissed up argument with someone, calling him and his family all the names under the sun and get a pasting, then that's technically assault. If a fireman tries to restrain someone because they're actively interfering in and preventing them from saving someone else's life and then takes a pasting for it, you're telling me that both of those instances should be judged the same as they're both "assault" after all?
Ideally, no members of the public would ever assault anyone anyway, but there is a difference between me voluntarily placing myself in that position with pissed up or sober people and those that HAVE to be in that position to do their job (and the person/people they're helping may not even be the person that assaults them, just someone getting in the way etc). They should be protected for all of our sakes. I can only presume that those who think there should be no extra protection are those who have never needed to rely upon the help and aid these people give to those of us who really need it.
The fireman would not have committed an assault there so that's an irrelevant point. The person who attacked you is still not justified in reacting to the provocation. I understand that assaulting a member of the emergency services has the potential consequence of preventing someone receiving help who needs it, but that should be a separate offence with a separate name and a separate punishment in addition to the original assault. My issue is that when we automatically go to higher punishments depending on the victim, then their worth as people is also elevated over everyone else, which is obviously nonsense. Treat a smack to the face the same as you would with anyone else, and also charge them with "obstructing the administering of medical aid" or something and stick a couple of years onto the sentence for that. To claim that you can only see people who disagree with it as never having needed the emergency services is an incredibly childish and reductive generalisation. |
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 9, 2019 16:29:25 GMT
Disagree myself. No assault to anyone should just be treated the same anyway i.e. if i get into a pissed up argument with someone, calling him and his family all the names under the sun and get a pasting, then that's technically assault. If a fireman tries to restrain someone because they're actively interfering in and preventing them from saving someone else's life and then takes a pasting for it, you're telling me that both of those instances should be judged the same as they're both "assault" after all?
Ideally, no members of the public would ever assault anyone anyway, but there is a difference between me voluntarily placing myself in that position with pissed up or sober people and those that HAVE to be in that position to do their job (and the person/people they're helping may not even be the person that assaults them, just someone getting in the way etc). They should be protected for all of our sakes. I can only presume that those who think there should be no extra protection are those who have never needed to rely upon the help and aid these people give to those of us who really need it.
The fireman would not have committed an assault there so that's an irrelevant point. The person who attacked you is still not justified in reacting to the provocation. I understand that assaulting a member of the emergency services has the potential consequence of preventing someone receiving help who needs it, but that should be a separate offence with a separate name and a separate punishment in addition to the original assault. My issue is that when we automatically go to higher punishments depending on the victim, then their worth as people is also elevated over everyone else, which is obviously nonsense. Treat a smack to the face the same as you would with anyone else, and also charge them with "obstructing the administering of medical aid" or something and stick a couple of years onto the sentence for that. To claim that you can only see people who disagree with it as never having needed the emergency services is an incredibly childish and reductive generalisation.
We're not talking about the blue light staff committing assaults are we? We're talking about them being assaulted so i have literally no idea at all what you're talking about with your first sentence (i never said anything, anywhere about a fireman assaulting anyone? I was simply making the point that someone carrying out their job which could save someone's life, could be assaulted and that SHOULD be seen as a different kind of assault to someone getting assaulted because THEY were also being a pissed up, lairy wanker who basically got their ass kicked in a fight so suddenly scream assault.......i.e. to lump ALL assaults in as the same regardless of who the victim is or the circumstances surrounding the assault, is ludicrous and making a massive generalisation about the offence itself).
Maybe people wouldn't need to resort to "reductive generalisation" (including yourself in your supposition that assault is all the same regardless of who your are), if you actually explained what you have in this post in your initial post, instead of just saying "Assault is assault" which in itself is a massive generalisation and utterly absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Apr 10, 2019 12:21:13 GMT
Should result in being blacklisted. Got pissed again and fell over? Had an accident? Tough, let someone who isn’t a complete cunt get the treatment and suffer in pain like the rodents they are. The staff should all carry Tasers the scum would think twice about attacking them then. I read in the independent co uk online these guys are attacked even more, in London. A lot of people out there with a death wish, I guess. |
|
