Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Jeremy Corbyn almost hits innocent black woman Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I did not claim it was racially based, I was merely pointing out an innocent black woman was the recipient of his aggressive behaviour; the reason for pointing out her race is that black people are already more likely to be the subject of violence against them, and women are too. For her to have had this unpleasant man leering at her and looking like he was about to hit her, it must have been quite frightening.

    Furthermore, any unwanted touching is a battery according to the law, and from what I can see from the video he did almost touch her, and may actually have touched her. There is no denying the aggressive character of what he did, and as a law student I would say it constitutes an assault (which is not a physical attack, but causing the apprehension/fear of unlawful violence. The video would indicate she did fear he was going to physically interact with her, she moved back). He couldn't work out he had been asking him the unwanted questions, so he just loomed over the closest person.
    I like a lot of what you have to say and share many of your views and frustrations of Corbyn. I think he's totally clueless and has no idea or plan on winning an election. I want him out.

    I'm also a law student btw.

    But I think you're being incredibly unfair and mischievous here. Why does it matter that she's black?

    I watched the video again to see if i'd missed something. By the looks of it the lady was walking close behind him and perhaps nudged him, Corbyn turned around for a split second to see what had happened and then turned back. He didn't say anything, he didn't raise his arms. He did not cause her to believe he would hit her in any way shape or form. He turned round for a couple of seconds and turned back.

    It was the equivalent of someone bumping into you in the street and you looking behind to see what had happened. Now if that's 'almost hitting' someone, it's ridiculous.
    He does not 'almost hit her'.

    I get your frustration with him. I share it. But there is so much legitimate stuff to attack him on. His views on Hamas, his total lack of electability, the people he's shared a stage with, his sheer incompetence.
    But to make out that he's almost hit someone when nothing like that occured, is silly. If you took that video to the police they'd laugh. If that is an assualt it's been caught on camera and i'd expect him to be charged, but it wasn't.

    This is silly, this is gutter poltitics. Leave that to the far left and far right. 'almost battering'?

    He looked at her. That's it. If that's an assault, then every time you look at someone, it is.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    What a fascinating analogy. It's quite interesting in what it reveals about you. I take it you've experienced these confused feelings many times?
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I also find it interesting that you find my raising these issues about Corbyn so personally upsetting that you start lashing out and hysterically attacking me.I suppose that is the nature of cults of personality. You feel an almost libidinous connection to your dear leader, so when you perceive he is being attacked, you become upset and angry and attempt to strike at the source

    Spoiler:
    Show
    You have an amazing sense of humour.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But I think you're being incredibly unfair and mischievous here. Why does it matter that she's black?
    I've already explained that in my comment above. Women and black people already suffer more from violence and harassment, and as a black woman having this man loom over her aggressively it must have been even more frightening than it would be for, say, a well-built white male who is less sensitised to violence against them.

    I watched the video again to see if i'd missed something. By the looks of it the lady was walking close behind him and perhaps nudged him, Corbyn turned around for a split second to see what had happened and then turned back. He didn't say anything
    You should pay closer attention. It has nothing to do with her "nudging" him, he was irritated by a man who had followed him (and Sadiq Khan before) asking them questions about housing in London and complaining that London Labour councils were knocking down council housing. You can hear the man asking the questions continuously in the video. Corbyn turns around angrily to find the source, but the man is just behind the black woman, and Corbyn is confused because he expected him to be right behind him. He turns around and charges back, looks confused and turns to face the front again having not found the source of his annoyance.

    He did not cause her to believe he would hit her in any way shape or form.
    You have no idea what she was thinking or what went through her head. She was clearly startled by his turning around and she stepped back as he turned around and charged forward looking for the source of the "annoying" questions.

    But to make out that he's almost hit someone when nothing like that occured, is silly. If you took that video to the police they'd laugh. If that is an assualt it's been caught on camera and i'd expect him to be charged, but it wasn't.
    Calm down. There's no need to get overwrought. There are plenty of technical assaults and batteries that occur every day, the fact they aren't or wouldn't be charged doesn't mean they are not an assault or battery. Obviously I wouldn't send it to the police, everyone involved is an adult and she may pursue it if she wishes.

    I don't mean to be provocative but it doesn't sound like you're particularly familiar with the basics of offences against the person. Presumably you know the elements of an assault, and that assault is not a physical attack but causing apprehension of unlawful physical force? She clearly looked startled and and stepped back to avoid him when he turned around. Any unwanted touching is a battery, and apprehension of unwanted touching is an assault if caused by the defendant. The fact she took action to avoid possible unwanted touching is demonstrative of her mental state in apprehending it.

    This incident, along with the others like his berating Cathy Newman for asking him inconvenient questions about his links to Holocaust deniers, shows a man who is barely in control of himself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    X
    And let me add to that. I'm not claiming this is the worst thing that ever happened, I'm not claiming he intended to frighten her or that he has something against black people or women.

    My threat title wasn't meant to imply hit as in hitting with a fist or hand, I meant it in the sense of "I hit my big toe against the table", he almost struck her with his body, not that he attacked her.

    But it is meant to convey that he is out of control and all over the place. And I believe he is. He is a very brittle man, his angry countenance and low tolerance for irritation shows that.

    In any case, you do know that even when you bring up the stuff about Hamas and Hezbollah, the money he took from Capita, the emoluments he accepted from property developers, the Corbynista just shriek "smear" and claim it's a conspiracy against him. If someone is still a Corbyn supporter at this point, nothing is going to change their mind. Pretty much everyone knows where they stand.

    This thread is more for the amusement and head-nodding approbation of other people on TSR who think similarly of him as I do
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I've already explained that in my comment above. Women and black people already suffer more from violence and harassment, and as a black woman having this man loom over her aggressively it must have been even more frightening than it would be for, say, a well-built white male who is less sensitised to violence against them.



    You should pay closer attention. It has nothing to do with her "nudging" him, he was irritated by a man who had followed him (and Sadiq Khan before) asking them questions about housing in London and complaining that London Labour councils were knocking down council housing. You can hear the man asking the questions continuously in the video. Corbyn turns around angrily to find the source, but the man is just behind the black woman, and Corbyn is confused because he expected him to be right behind him. He turns around and charges back, looks confused and turns to face the front again having not found the source of his annoyance.



    You have no idea what she was thinking or what went through her head. She was clearly startled by his turning around and she stepped back as he turned around and charged forward looking for the source of the "annoying" questions.



    Calm down. There's no need to get overwrought. There are plenty of technical assaults and batteries that occur every day, the fact they aren't or wouldn't be charged doesn't mean they are not an assault or battery. Obviously I wouldn't send it to the police, everyone involved is an adult and she may pursue it if she wishes.

    I don't mean to be provocative but it doesn't sound like you're particularly familiar with the basics of offences against the person. Presumably you know the elements of an assault, and that assault is not a physical attack but causing apprehension of unlawful physical force? She clearly looked startled and and stepped back to avoid him when he turned around. Any unwanted touching is a battery, and apprehension of unwanted touching is an assault if caused by the defendant. The fact she took action to avoid possible unwanted touching is demonstrative of her mental state in apprehending it.

    This incident, along with the others like his berating Cathy Newman for asking him inconvenient questions about his links to Holocaust deniers, shows a man who is barely in control of himself.
    I'm very familiar with the elements of assault. I also know assault is intentionally making someone fear violence.
    He looks at her. That's about it. In a confused manner he turned round and turned back again. He didn't raise his hands, he didn't touch her, he didn't attempt to touch her, he didn't say anything.

    If looking at someone with your arms by your side, fists unclenched without saying anything for a seconf is 'almost hitting' someone and warrants an assault, we are all screwed.



    Leave this type of politics to the Sun and Daily Mail. Criticise his policies and his incompetence, don't make up stories about him nearly hitting someone.
    I think you know, as well as I that if this wasn't Corbyn you wouldn't say it was assault. It's a really low blow.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    One day Corbyn might show the same passion in support of British workers. And maybe not.
    Why does it matter that they're British?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    He didn't raise his hands, he didn't touch her, he didn't attempt to touch her, he didn't say anything.
    None of those things are necessary for an assault. The Court of Appeal has ruled that even the absence of words, where the accused isn't even physically present, can constitute an assault. All that matters is that the victim apprehended unlawful application of physical force.

    The fact he didn't touch her is immaterial, obviously, insofar as we're discussing assault.

    If looking at someone with your arms by your side, fists unclenched without saying anything is 'almost hitting' someone and warrants an assault, we are all screwed.
    Of course looking at someone, with your arms by your side, fists unclenched without saying anything can constitute an assault.

    I'll give you a scenario. Say you're standing outside a nightclub, and a six foot five bouncer comes and looms over you. You take a step back, he steps forward again. He has a slightly crazed look in his eye. You think he's about to hit you. No one would seriously argue that scenario is incapable of constituting an assault simply because he said nothing, kept his arms by his side and made no gesture to hit.

    As for "we are all screwed", don't your professors talk to you about this stuff? I mean, about consent to offences against the person, about technical batteries, about situations like being on the tube? There are many situations where technically speaking "we are all screwed". What tempers the technical rigour of the law is that the CPS has common-sensical charging guidelines

    You are alleging he almost hit someone when he didn't.
    In fairness, I do clarify "hit" in my additional comment above.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hussm)
    Why does it matter that they're British?
    Presumably because British workers are the only ones he actually has any responsibility for? He is not responsible for the conditions of Bangladeshi garment workers or iPhone builders in China. His brief is the welfare of working people in this country.

    It would certainly be great if he could show as much passion for that as he does for his obsessions with overseas conflicts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I think you know, as well as I that if this wasn't Corbyn you wouldn't say it was assault. It's a really low blow.
    To be fair, that's not entirely true. If it wasn't Corbyn I probably wouldn't even be aware of it, but it makes for an interesting thought experiment on what constitutes an assault.

    Whoever the participants were, I'd say that the woman's behaviour could evidence an apprehension of unlawful application of force (remember that isn't just hitting.. any unwanted touching is technically a battery and apprehension of a battery is an assault). From the perspective of that thought experiment or as a legal problem, I'd conclude that it might well constitute an assault and it would be a fun debate to have in a tutorial
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    None of those things are necessary for an assault. The Court of Appeal has ruled that even the absence of words, where the accused isn't even physically present, can constitute an assault. All that matters is that the victim apprehended unlawful application of physical force.

    The fact he didn't touch her is immaterial, obviously, insofar as we're discussing assault.



    Of course looking at someone, with your arms by your side, fists unclenched without saying anything can constitute an assault.

    I'll give you a scenario. Say you're standing outside a nightclub, and a six foot five bouncer comes and looms over you. You take a step back, he steps forward again. He has a slightly crazed look in his eye. You think he's about to hit you. No one would seriously argue that scenario is incapable of constituting an assault simply because he said nothing, kept his arms by his side and made no gesture to hit.

    As for "we are all screwed", don't your professors talk to you about this stuff? I mean, about consent to offences against the person, about technical batteries, about situations like being on the tube? There are many situations where technically speaking "we are all screwed". What tempers the technical rigour of the law is that the CPS has common-sensical charging guidelines



    In fairness, I do clarify "hit" in my additional comment above.
    But none of that happened. Assault doesn't require touching no, but it requires at least intentionally making someone fear immediate violence. He doesn't. Do you really think he intentionally tired to make that woman feel he was about to hit her?

    Yes arms down fists unclenched doesn't necessarily mean no assault can happen but in context, glaring at someone with your arms down, fists unclenched and not saying anything hardly constitutes an assault.

    You did clarify 'hits', but I think you know what when you say 'hit', or 'almost hits', the connotation and image that one is trying to portray is that he swung at her.

    But just look again, he looks at her and turns round. That's not an assault that's not 'almost hitting' her. If looking at someone consitutes an assault we all commit thousands of assaults per week.

    I get your frustration with Corbyn, I share a lot of it but this is dirty, dirty politics. No one deserves to be falsely accused of hitting someone or 'almost doing so'. He looked at her. It's a complete non-story and I really don't think if it was someone other than Corbyn you would have said anything.

    Leave this type of politics to the far left and Sun.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    To be fair, that's not entirely true. If it wasn't Corbyn I probably wouldn't even be aware of it, but it makes for an interesting thought experiment on what constitutes an assault.

    Whoever the participants were, I'd say that the woman's behaviour could evidence an apprehension of unlawful application of force (remember that isn't just hitting.. any unwanted touching is technically a battery and apprehension of a battery is an assault). From the perspective of that thought experiment or as a legal problem, I'd conclude that it might well constitute an assault and it would be a fun debate to have in a tutorial
    There has to be intention/recklessness on behalf of the alleged perpetrator. There was neither. He turned round to see what was going on.

    It wouldn't make an interesting tutorial debate. He looked at her for a second and turned back. He doesn't touch her or do anything to make her feel like he would.
    It's not assault, battery or anything else. It's a non-story.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But none of that happened. Assault doesn't require touching no
    It's not that it doesn't require it, assault specifically excludes touching because if touching is involved, it's a battery not an assault.

    but it requires at least intentionally making someone fear immediate violence. He doesn't. Do you really think he intentionally tired to make that woman feel he was about to hit her?
    Assault is an offence of basic, not specific, intent. If he was reckless as to the likelihood of causing her to apprehend unlawful *force* (including any touching), then that is an assault.

    Yes arms down fists unclenched doesn't necessarily mean no assault can happen but in context, glaring at someone with your arms down, fists unclenched and not saying anything hardly constitutes an assault.
    If glaring at someone causes them to apprehend unlawful physical force, and D intended that or was reckless as to the likelihood, it is an assault. I can think of many situations where glaring at someone, saying nothing, would cause them to think that violence is about to commence. Have you ever been out in a big city on a Friday?

    But just look again, he looks at her and turns round. That's not an assault that's not 'almost hitting' her. If looking at someone consitutes an assault we all commit thousands of assaults per week.
    He didn't just look at her. He swung around and charged forward attempting to find the source of the unwanted questions. He thought the questioner was right behind him, and so he was confused when he found the black lady. But he did turn around and charge back, and she stepped back to avoid him crashing into her.

    That in itself evidences that she apprehended unwanted touching. If a court was convinced that he was reckless as to the likelihood that would happen, he would be guilty.

    At this point, to be honest, I don't even care that it's Corbyn anymore. It's more interesting as a legal problem. And to me it's very clear that this could constitute an assault. In the context of the situation, of course I don't think any charges would follow, but from a technical legal perspective, the elements (his recklessness, her stepping back to avoid him crashing into her which would have been a battery thus evidencing her apprehension) constitute the formal and technical elements of the offence.

    The common sense element can come in when the CPS looks at it, but from the perspective of a law student, I'm looking at what the common law says not what the CPS guidelines are.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    He looked at her for a second and turned back. He doesn't touch her or do anything to make her feel like he would.
    It's not assault, battery or anything else. It's a non-story.
    So why did she step back and look startled? Your position doesn't follow unless you're asserting that her looking startled and stepping back had nothing to do with him swinging around and charging volte-face from the direction he'd just been going. And that is, in itself, a ludicrous assertion.

    I'm not trying to be provocative but I don't think you have a particularly good technical grasp of offences against the person, I've had to correct a lot of basic mistakes you've made (eg thinking that assault requires some gesture towards violence, that his not having his hands raised means an assault couldn't have occurred) and so it doesn't give me a lot of confidence that we're really getting anywhere in discussing this. You seem to have quite a colloquial and layman's grasp of the law (i.e. "That doesn't sound like common sense so it can't possibly be the law")

    We're obviously not going to agree on this, so better just to agree to disagree, yes?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    X
    Assault requires intentionally or recklessly making someone fear immediate violence against them.
    He didn't do either. I think you're massively overstating and exaggerating what the woman did. He turned around. That's it. If someone turning around to answer a question counts as an assault, then we all literally commit hundreds of assaults a week. Someone fearing it does not necessarily mean it's assault. There has to be intention/recklessness.

    It's a non-story and it's pretty slanderous. The title clearly implies that Corbyn tried to hit someone or that he swung at them. The reality is he turned round for a second to see what was going on and then turned back.

    There was no assault, he did not almost hit her, he did not intentionally or recklessly cause her to fear unlawful violence. It's not an interesting legal question. The answer is simply no. If turning round counts as assault then the next time someone shouts you and you turn round and look at them, that counts as assault. It's a non-story. A non-event, nothing of any significance. Because nothing happened. A better, more accurate title would be 'Corbyn turns round and looks at woman'. If that makes 'news' i'm seriously worried.

    I don't like Corbyn, I don't want him as leader. I'm appalled by his kind words towards Hamas and the people he has shared a platform with.
    Those are things to attack him on, not made up stories about him almost hitting someone when no such event happened. If it was Jarvis, or Blair or heck anyone other than a Corbynista, you wouldn't say it was assault.


    It's absolute gutter politics, it's sinking to the level of the Corbynista, the Daily Mail and the Sun. Agree to disagree yeah, but I really don't think you genuinely think he 'almost hit' her or that he assaulted her.

    You're an intelligent guy, you make great points and posts and I agree with a lot of what you have to say. Leave this type of gutter politics to the idiots.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I know very little about Corbyn's policies, but from this thread I'm loving his character. Seems he don't take no ****, yo. I always got annoyed whenever journalists/reporters wouldn't let politicians answer. He makes a nice change from the conventional droll politician, I think.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hussm)
    Why does it matter that they're British?
    Because he is a British MP and leads a British poltiical party. If he can't look after the interests of British workers he has no hope of looking after any one else's.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The Daily Mail really is a :dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin:ing cancer. How stupid do you have to be to take anything they write seriously?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.