Comments by "Iazzaboyce" (@Iazzaboyce) on "SWNS" channel.

We're finding out what Labour activists are really like...
9
@Tomtomjameson Sometimes car drivers do not see motorbikes. It's possible to commit to overtake into the path of an oncoming motorbike.
3
This is 'global winding' we need to reduce farty food consumption.
3
@markhepworth In your comments you openly seek justification for the attack: "Maybe, but why do you think he was punching the fella in the first place..?" "it’s 2 people arguing about something..not generally 1 person swinging out of nowhere after 5 minute conversation" "Do you think the fella didn’t threaten the MP..?" These questions suggest you believe the attack was somehow justified. The law only allows a person to strike another to prevent an attack and there must be evidence of an attack to back this up. In your last comment you actually justify the attack by claiming there was a reason. "Now,people hardly ever punch people for no reason..have you ever been out for a night...?" "Do you think the guy was complimenting the MP before being punched,or do you ‘think’ that he may have said something the triggered the MP to do this?" You may as well argue that people only steal because they wanted something.
2
@markhepworth I only see this post ('3 times now'). I have the same problem.
2
@Tomtomjameson You seem a bit thick mate. I just said car drivers often don't see motorbikes until it's too late (this does not mean the car driver is 100% at fault as the motorbike might be travelling too fast). This is known to happen. We shouldn't assume anything, because we don't know the facts. There will be an official investigation that will establish what happened based on the physical evidence and any eye witness accounts. You thinking you have "beliefs" and other people have "hypothesis and theories" suggests you have a self-importance issue.
2
@markhepworth In law and on the video evidence there was no threat. There is no legal defence of 'I punched him because he said something I did not like'
1
'felt threatened' isn't enough - he has to be able to prove he had reason to believe he (or other) was threatened and he needed to use reasonable force to defend himself (or other). There is no evidence to suggest he could have believed he was in any danger, the law expects you to walk away from possible danger and the force he used was beyond excessive. Right now Mr Amesbury's lawyer will be explaining he hasn't got a proverbial 'leg to stand on'..
1