Xac wrote:I do wish you would read my posts properly Richard, as I stated it was loutish behaviour not oikish.
Xac, what planet are you on? Try landing on earth where everyone else is and stop splitting hairs, how on earth can anyone with a decent sense of right and wrong ever try to excuse their behaviour being anything other than that of an Oik?
OK if you prefer to call them louts remind yourself of how you in your own words are happy to describe Cameron and Johnson's behaviour;
Definition of a lout = "boorish: ill-mannered and coarse and contemptible in behaviour or appearance; "was boorish and insensitive"; "the loutish manners of a bully"; "her stupid oafish husband"; "aristocratic contempt for the swinish multitude". Are you happy with that Xac? I'll go along with that description if you prefer it.
Oik = "An uncouth or obnoxious person again". Ah fits like a glove as well as both expressions show them for what they are
Unless of course you think its acceptable to smash up someone else's property as long as you then pay for the damage, send me your address and I'll pop round to your house later and put that to the test.
Xac wrote:Surly if a criminal act has been performed then they would have received at least a caution, or are you suggesting the police are corrupt? After all if they will caution a man for "beating" his partner when what he did was slap her to stop her punching him any more during a violent drunken attack on him simply because he wouldn't search for some mundane thing on google and walked away rather than have an argument, then surely a caution for breaking a few glasses would be likely.
Oh dear your knowledge of law and Police procedures is very low indeed so best you stay away from that department in the future
There's one word needed to refute your suggestion that I'm alleging that the Police were corrupt, its called "evidence". So let me take you back to the second day of a Police Officers career following introduction to basic recruit training. If there is no direct evidence being supplied by a witness then there is no case to answer as the case cannot be proved. In a case of Criminal Damage the victim has to supply a "Losers Statement" detailing his or her losses, there also needs to be direct evidence supplied by a witness in court to say that each person did what. Without those elements there is no case. If the case cannot be proved a caution cannot be given. Got that?
What happened in this instance is that Cameron and Johnston effectively bought their way out of criminal convictions by paying for the damage they caused or in other words bought the victims silence, now some might allege that to be a form of corruption, may they not? Whatever, its very commonplace, pay the victim off so that they no longer want to go through the hassle of going to court. You may be happy with that and excuse such behaviour, personally I think it stinks especially when its as pre-meditated as the Bullingdon Club operated. I'm very surprised at you Xac, I never put you down as an anarchist, still you live and learn.
If you are alleging assault in the domestic circumstances you describe (not too sure I've come across the offence of "Beating" before) a slap is a form of assault albeit generally classed as "Common Assault" the lowest level of assault charges, just like your other explanations your thinking appears to be rather muddled. The man has the right to defend himself but does not have the right to do any more than that, so if you have a small woman thumping a man and he then gives her a right hander he'll have quite a job defending his actions, as all he needed to do was take hold of her arms for instance.
Take the Tony Martin case, he was convicted of killing the burglar as he shot him in the back as he was running away, if he had shot him face to face in his house and the burglar was threatening him with a knife or gun there would have been no case to answer as long as he could prove that he had the honest held belief that his own life was in danger. As the burglar was running away that clearly wasn't the case so he was quite rightly found guilty. There have been a number of recent cases where burglars have been killed by householders and no further action or charges have been brought against the householder who killed the burglar for the reasons I mention above.
Let me remind you that the Police have to refer each case to the CPS to decide whether a person is charged with an offence or not, the Police are effectively evidence gatherers, the CPS make the final decision. Please don't throw silly allegations at me without foundation, know your subject before making such a suggestion.
Xac wrote:Similarly if the behaviour is often repeated the subject would be a lout rather than just having participated in loutish behaviour. In the case of Bob Crow, he repeatedly behaves in a rude and unacceptable way, ergo he is an oik.
Go on Xac, admit it, in his job description Bob Crow has been very successful indeed, we all know that if you were working on the railways you'd be grateful for what he's achieved, he's not there to be liked by you, his job is to secure the best package for his members. I only mentioned his name in response to you saying that Boris was good at challenging the unions, clearly he's not as good at it as you claim.
You claim Bob to be an Oik, maybe he his but one things for sure, he hasn't gone around deliberately smashing up other people property for fun
I'd take Bob's blunt nature or rudeness over Cameron and Johnson's criminal behaviour every day of the week. Clearly you you excuse criminal behaviour as long as you pay for the damage afterwards, heaven help any kids you bring up with that state of mind, you'll be pennyless and your kids will end up in care
Xac wrote:One thing I have not heard reports of is Cameron or Boris being repeatedly rude.
Oh dear here you go again, do you really want me to remind you of these words "Calm down dear" and before I go looking elsewhere for more facts rather than fiction to back up any of my arguments, I've always thought it rude not to answer a question when someone asks you one so on that basis Boris must be the rudest person on earth as he's never done that in his life!