Judge throws out Sunak home protest charges

[Unlucky4Sum]

The real problem here is that trespass of someone's home is not of itself a criminal offence. Wilful trespass causing alarm or distress without reasonable belief that the home owner would have been OK with the presence, should be.

Here FWIW is the complete list of all the trespass related offences https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/trespass-and-nuisance-land

[papasmurf]

Is keeping your doors locked going to stop someone climbing on your roof?

No, but my neighbours would.

[Nick]

I don't have any feral chums. (Wrong assumption by you.) The Prime Minister's Home should be guarded 24/7/365 whether he is there or not. It was a severe breach of security it was not.
I keep the doors to my home locked even my wife and I are home.

Is keeping your doors locked going to stop someone climbing on your roof?

[papasmurf]

On that victim blaming apology for logic if someone leaves their door unlocked it's no crime for someone to go in a house and steal what they want.

Your feral chums have set a dangerous precedent you would be outraged about if someone did that to your home.

I don't have any feral chums. (Wrong assumption by you.) The Prime Minister's Home should be guarded 24/7/365 whether he is there or not. It was a severe breach of security it was not.
I keep the doors to my home locked even my wife and I are home.

[Unlucky4Sum]

On that victim blaming apology for logic if someone leaves their door unlocked it's no crime for someone to go in a house and steal what they want.

Your feral chums have set a dangerous precedent you would be outraged about if someone did that to your home.

[papasmurf]

It's sad that you don't understand that the evidence was contaminated, even sadder that you don't realise that doing this to someone's home is outrageous. 

Nothing sad about my opinion, there is nothing outrageous about it. The only outrageous about it is the lack of  security at the house in the absence of the Prime Minister.  The protesters had to phone the police themselves to inform the police they were there.  That lack of security is a scandal. People with ill intent could have rigged building with explosives.

[Unlucky4Sum]

It's sad that you don't understand that the evidence was contaminated, even sadder that you don't realise that doing this to someone's home is outrageous.  

[papasmurf]

No the judge said ' the evidence was too "tenuous" for them to be convicted'

I understand your emotional need to wildly exaggerate that to 'no evidence' and 'no damage' but that's just what you do.

Tenuous=  having little substance or strength.
I have no "emotional" need. If the police and CPS act politically, they should not expect a judge to back them up.
There are numerous precedents for a judge to kick out politically motivated prosecutions.

[Unlucky4Sum]

No the judge said ' the evidence was too "tenuous" for them to be convicted'

I understand your emotional need to wildly exaggerate that to 'no evidence' and 'no damage' but that's just what you do.

[papasmurf]

According to you

Whereas:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0e1eendjwo

'Mr Richardson told the court he was only asked to inspect the area where he was told the protesters had been.

He then saw 15 tiles that would need to be repaired and said he could tell the damage was recent because of "weathering and colouration".

But it was found that three of the 15 pictures used by the prosecution were actually of the same tile taken from different angles, and some had been taken after Mr Richardson had moved the tiles to carry out the repairs in November.'

As I said, there was damage but the police fucked up the evidence

Recent does not prove the protestors were responsible for it and the judge was obviously of the same opinion.

[Unlucky4Sum]

No damage was done, the photographs were public domain and no damage was shown or reported.

According to you

Whereas:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0e1eendjwo 

'Mr Richardson told the court he was only asked to inspect the area where he was told the protesters had been.

He then saw 15 tiles that would need to be repaired and said he could tell the damage was recent because of "weathering and colouration".

But it was found that three of the 15 pictures used by the prosecution were actually of the same tile taken from different angles, and some had been taken after Mr Richardson had moved the tiles to carry out the repairs in November.'

As I said, there was damage but the police fucked up the evidence

[papasmurf]

Damage was done, the police fucked up the evidence by not taking photographs before removing the tiles

No damage was done, the photographs were public domain and no damage was shown or reported.

[Unlucky4Sum]

There was no attack, no damage was done. The prosecution was always going to fail.

Damage was done, the police fucked up the evidence by not taking photographs before removing the tiles

[papasmurf]

They're very lucky.  The police fucked up the evidence.

That feral scum are allowed to get away with attacking people's private homes like this isn't just plain wrong, it's an incentive to some to take to other 'measures' to prevent such.

There was no attack, no damage was done. The prosecution was always going to fail.

[Unlucky4Sum]

They're very lucky.  The police fucked up the evidence.

That feral scum are allowed to get away with attacking people's private homes like this isn't just plain wrong, it's an incentive to some to take to other 'measures' to prevent such.