Idle gossip.

[AL.]

Idle gossip, just came up on the rugby 24 page (that I noticed anyway).

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wo ... ed-8981098

[Lizard]

I'm not familiar with Northern Irish criminal law but a charge of "common assault" sounds like something less than the "battering" alleged in the article. Not that it makes it OK, of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AL.]

I don't think they should be allowed to talk about it until it is proven, then open season. If not, it should not get a mention anywhere.....

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I'm not familiar with Northern Irish criminal law but a charge of "common assault" sounds like something less than the "battering" alleged in the article. Not that it makes it OK, of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's actually the same offence, usually and the terms "assault" and "battery" are used interchangeably by and large. Battery is any unlawful touching. Common assault is technically causing the apprehension of a battery but "assault" includes both common assault and battery.

[Lizard]

I'm not familiar with Northern Irish criminal law but a charge of "common assault" sounds like something less than the "battering" alleged in the article. Not that it makes it OK, of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's actually the same offence, usually and the terms "assault" and "battery" are used interchangeably by and large. Battery is any unlawful touching. Common assault is technically causing the apprehension of a battery but "assault" includes both common assault and battery.

Ah, that does ring a bell - it's been 20 years since I took a criminal law paper. Presumably if there had been any injury caused the charge would be more severe - there must be "causing bodily harm" type offences?

Mind you, here in NZ the press seems to think we should be hanging, drawing and quartering a bloke just for obliging a young lady, at her request, in the privacy of his own public toilet.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I'm not familiar with Northern Irish criminal law but a charge of "common assault" sounds like something less than the "battering" alleged in the article. Not that it makes it OK, of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's actually the same offence, usually and the terms "assault" and "battery" are used interchangeably by and large. Battery is any unlawful touching. Common assault is technically causing the apprehension of a battery but "assault" includes both common assault and battery.

Ah, that does ring a bell - it's been 20 years since I took a criminal law paper. Presumably if there had been any injury caused the charge would be more severe - there must be "causing bodily harm" type offences?

Mind you, here in NZ the press seems to think we should be hanging, drawing and quartering a bloke just for obliging a young lady, at her request, in the privacy of his own public toilet.

Offences against the person act 1861 s.47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm