This is somewhere between a rant and a stream of conciousness,… - Sally's Journal
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 03:10 pm (UTC)|| |
And me to believe a tame lawyer.
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 03:35 pm (UTC)|| |
That's a bit poor. I'll see if I can do something about it.
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.
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 05:36 pm (UTC)|| |
In what way is setting fire to someone lawful? *boggle*
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 09:11 pm (UTC)|| |
/me twitches gently.
|Date:||December 2nd, 2005 08:57 am (UTC)|| |
Look, I cut these posts just so people can _avoid_ triggery stuff, you know...
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.
Just to be completely clear, setting fire to your fiancée as part of kinky sex is not lawful (R v Emmett).
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?
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.