Could have been worse Conan, they could have charged him with wearing a pointy hat:
Offensive Pointy Hats
1. Prosecutors should recognise that wearing a pointy hat is a serious offence. The unlawful provision and possession of pointy hats encourages emails to be written, bricks to be flung and truths to be outed that can lead to serious embarrassment, broken windows, sackings, death and other serious things.
2. There is a strong public interest in deterring the carrying and use of pointy hats and other offensive clothing. Accordingly, where there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, the public interest will normally require a flogging.
3. Where the evidence discloses that the defendant has used a pointy hat to injury/threaten violence/cause fear, or has carried a pointy hat in a way which contravenes a possession offence, there will be a number of compelling public interest factors in favour of prosecution which should be accorded a public flogging.
Defence
1. The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that he had "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" for having the pointy hat ((Watson 24-121-122). Where details of a defence are given in interview or in a defence statement, the PF should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with the police if additional enquiries or the planting of further evidence are necessary.
2. The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that: • he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the pointy hat; or • he had the article for use at work; or • he had the article for religious reasons; or • he had the article as part of a national costume; or • he had the correct amount of money on him for a backhander (Watson 24-125).
Aye Donald, wearing a pointy hat is reserved. A wee bit coronet on yer heid and the Scotsman gies ye an interminable "right" to proselytize upon what *normal* people think. If Foulkes is normal, I'm glad to be SNP.
Deeply suspicious of a guy with pointy hat "chapping" on windows. What if this resulted in a broken window? Would two CID officers come to investigate the breach of the peace?
PS: Why does M/s Cunningham want to get rid of Mandelson? Has she heard about the party in Archer's house?
Aye - and the Westmin Goobermint threatened tae over-ride Holyrood on the matter. When are devolved powers not devolved? Whenever Westmin wants.
ReplyDeleteAh see wee Wullie`s been at it again!
Aye Scunnert, for sending disturbing emails; just like the on he got telling him he was sacked.That would disturb my peace too.
ReplyDeleteWho's Queen Dead? And why is she required by Sino-Namibian Pyxies?
ReplyDeleteLead singer Edgar.
ReplyDeleteCould have been worse Conan, they could have charged him with wearing a pointy hat:
ReplyDeleteOffensive Pointy Hats
1. Prosecutors should recognise that wearing a pointy hat is a serious offence. The unlawful provision and possession of pointy hats encourages emails to be written, bricks to be flung and truths to be outed that can lead to serious embarrassment, broken windows, sackings, death and other serious things.
2. There is a strong public interest in deterring the carrying and use of pointy hats and other offensive clothing. Accordingly, where there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, the public interest will normally require a flogging.
3. Where the evidence discloses that the defendant has used a pointy hat to injury/threaten violence/cause fear, or has carried a pointy hat in a way which contravenes a possession offence, there will be a number of compelling public interest factors in favour of prosecution which should be accorded a public flogging.
Defence
1. The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that he had "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" for having the pointy hat ((Watson 24-121-122). Where details of a defence are given in interview or in a defence statement, the PF should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with the police if additional enquiries or the planting of further evidence are necessary.
2. The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that:
• he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the pointy hat; or
• he had the article for use at work; or
• he had the article for religious reasons; or
• he had the article as part of a national costume; or
• he had the correct amount of money on him for a backhander (Watson 24-125).
Aye Donald, wearing a pointy hat is reserved.
ReplyDeleteA wee bit coronet on yer heid and the Scotsman gies ye an interminable "right" to proselytize upon what *normal* people think.
If Foulkes is normal, I'm glad to be SNP.
Deeply suspicious of a guy with pointy hat "chapping" on windows. What if this resulted in a broken window? Would two CID officers come to investigate the breach of the peace?
ReplyDeletePS: Why does M/s Cunningham want to get rid of Mandelson? Has she heard about the party in Archer's house?
Brownlie, the broken windae expert must be Madaxeman.
ReplyDeleteUnless you ken better...