?

Log in

No account? Create an account
This is somewhere between a rant and a stream of conciousness,… - Sally's Journal
November 29th, 2005
12:20 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

(128 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:November 29th, 2005 03:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That'll teach me to believe wikipedia :-)
From:neonchameleon
Date:November 29th, 2005 03:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
And me to believe a tame lawyer.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:November 29th, 2005 03:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Ah, I keep wild lawyers instead

*smiles at robert_jones*
[User Picture]
From:robert_jones
Date:November 29th, 2005 03:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That's a bit poor. I'll see if I can do something about it.
[User Picture]
From:robert_jones
Date:November 29th, 2005 05:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I've now editted the article. Perhaps you, or someone who knows about Wikipedia, could have a look and see if I've done it right. The information could probably be more clearly explained as well, but I don't have the time.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:November 29th, 2005 05:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
In what way is setting fire to someone lawful? *boggle*
[User Picture]
From:arnhem
Date:November 29th, 2005 09:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
/me twitches gently.
[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:December 2nd, 2005 08:57 am (UTC)
(Link)
Look, I cut these posts just so people can _avoid_ triggery stuff, you know...
[User Picture]
From:robert_jones
Date:November 29th, 2005 10:24 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well, you know, all in a spirit of fun, and the RAF are a fine upstanding body of men, not at all like these dodgy perverts.
[User Picture]
From:robert_jones
Date:November 29th, 2005 10:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Just to be completely clear, setting fire to your fiancée as part of kinky sex is not lawful (R v Emmett).
[User Picture]
From:cartesiandaemon
Date:November 30th, 2005 12:26 am (UTC)
(Link)
The GBH article? It looks wikipedia acceptable to me, with my limited experience, and clearer than it was when I looked it up last time this debate happened. Woo, wikipedia is working ;)

Are wounding and GBH treated the same?
[User Picture]
From:robert_jones
Date:December 7th, 2005 11:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Basically, yes. ss18 & 20 both combine two offences in one section, in a way which wouldn't happen if the statute where drafted today. If you were to wound some one, you would be charged "A on or about the ... day of ... unlawfully and mailiciously wounded V". If you were to commit GBH you would be charged "A on or about the ... day of ... unlawfully and maliciously inflicted grevious bodily harm on V". But in either case you would have committed an offence contrary to s20 and the sentence and procedure would be the same.
Powered by LiveJournal.com