MP suspended after River Weaver Swing Bridge fight!

[Tim Lewis]

MP not happy with bridge closure!
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/28/mike-amesbury-urged-to-resign-bridge-row-altercation

[magpie patrick]

Unless the other guy was thr bridge keeper one wonders what the honorable member's gripe with him was? I mean, one doesn't normally get in a heated discussion about such things with random strangers! 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

The MP is nothing but a drunken thug, should be sacked immediately and charged with GBH/ABH by police.
Here’s a link to the video, I must warn people it contains unprovoked violence. Please don’t watch if upset by violent scenes. 

 

Edited October 29, 2024 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[ditchcrawler]

Didn't two jags do something similar

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Didn't two jags do something similar

He punched someone, but this is different, this is more violent, he sucker punched the guy, then carried on punching him once the guy is on the floor, so that’s intent. He was obviously under the influence of alcohol and knew he messed up as keeps telling everyone he was threatened on the video, so trying to play some sort of innocent victim.
 Then next day he goes to the police station defending his drunken violent action and knowing there will be consequences, saying he was threatened and getting his side of the story in before the story/video went public. If this MP is not charged and sacked there’s something wrong with the justice system and if any of Parliament’s elected members defend this they are not fit for public service.

Edited October 30, 2024 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[blackrose]

9 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Didn't two jags do something similar

 

He punched the guy in retaliation after something was thrown at him from a few feet away, so it wasn't really similar. Unless you're saying that simply punching someone is similar - in which case that applies to most people.

 

9 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

The MP is nothing but a drunken thug, should be sacked immediately and charged with GBH/ABH by police.

 

 

I agree, but on the other hand he's probably right that the other guy won't ever threaten an MP again - if that's what happened.

Edited October 30, 2024 by blackrose

[JoeC]

Wait for the facts to come out before making your minds up.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

42 minutes ago, JoeC said:

Wait for the facts to come out before making your minds up.

You can see the facts on the video, he clearly assaulted someone. Go and watch it. He could have walked away even after punching the guy once, but he punched him six times more when he was on the ground and unable to defend himself, that’s GBH/ABH with intent. 

Edited October 30, 2024 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[Ronaldo47]

Some 30 years ago I did jury service. I only got called for one case, where the crucial thing was whether or not the defendant had kicked the guy he had been in a fight with when he was on the ground. No kicking seems to have been involved in the present case, and I don't know if, in the eyes of the law, punching someone when they are on the ground is equivalent to kicking them.

Edited October 30, 2024 by Ronaldo47

[MtB]

The thing that I'd like to hear or read about is what the victim said to Amesbury to provoke the attack. 

 

Amesbury is heard to have repeatedly said the victim threatened him. One wonders about what. Something to do with the bridge one would guess, but it's hard to imagine what that threat could have been to justify a physical attack! 

[Laurie Booth]

25 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

Some 30 years ago I did jury service. I only got called for one case, where the crucial thing was whether or not the defendant had kicked the guy he had been in a fight with when he was on the ground. No kicking seems to have been involved in the present case, and I don't know if, in the eyes of the law, punching someone when they are on the ground is equivalent to kicking them.

He does kick the man on the ground.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

15 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

Some 30 years ago I did jury service. I only got called for one case, where the crucial thing was whether or not the defendant had kicked the guy he had been in a fight with when he was on the ground. No kicking seems to have been involved in the present case, and I don't know if, in the eyes of the law, punching someone when they are on the ground is equivalent to kicking them.

Was watching some report and discussion on this, apparently happened at 2:48am at a Taxi rank and the consensus was that he could of walked away, even after the first punch, but he decidedly to follow up with punches, so they said this was intent to do harm, which they did not think was defending himself after feeling threatened. I think his career is now over. Will be interesting to see how kier Starmer handles this? Hope he’s sacked and not allowed to resign with any payout or MP’s pension.

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

The thing that I'd like to hear or read about is what the victim said to Amesbury to provoke the attack. 

 

Amesbury is heard to have repeatedly said the victim threatened him. One wonders about what. Something to do with the bridge one would guess, but it's hard to imagine what that threat could have been to justify a physical attack! 

One report I read, said it happened at a Taxi Rank and the argument was over Petrol Prices?

 He had been to a public meeting earlier in the evening with members of the public, Councillors and Police to discuss local issues, so reports say. He’d obviously stayed out and had a few beers afterwards🍻🍻

 

[Stroudwater1]

Why should he not get his pension? He’s contributed in his pay towards it, and presumably done his parliamentary work up till now.

 

It’s unfair on his spouse if he dies before them and they gets no survivors pension when they have done nothing wrong? 

Assume you are in favour of criminals not receiving a State pension then? 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

8 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Why should he not get his pension? He’s contributed in his pay towards it, and presumably done his parliamentary work up till now.

 

It’s unfair on his spouse if he dies before them and they gets no survivors pension when they have done nothing wrong? 

Assume you are in favour of criminals not receiving a State pension then? 

 As a consequence of his actions he should be sacked, he should not be given the right to resign and should loose any lump sum and MP’s pension rights that he has not paid directly into from his salary.

we’re not talking state pension.

  There’s lots of jobs that if your sacked you loose a lot of money in not receiving final payout.

Edited October 30, 2024 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[David Schweizer]

Mike Amesbury has been suspended from the Labour Party, and has had the party whip withdrawn, that is effectively the same as being sacked from the Labour Party. However, Keir Starmer does not have the right to sack him from the post of MP, only the electorate can do that.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

53 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

Mike Amesbury has been suspended from the Labour Party, and has had the party whip withdrawn, that is effectively the same as being sacked from the Labour Party. However, Keir Starmer does not have the right to sack him from the post of MP, only the electorate can do that.

I would say he’s basically sacked himself with his actions. I doubt he would win a constituency by-election standing as an independent, hopefully he’ll end up with a criminal record or jail time, so his life in anyway representing decent people will be over.

[David Schweizer]

17 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

I would say he’s basically sacked himself with his actions. I doubt he would win a constituency by-election standing as an independent, hopefully he’ll end up with a criminal record or jail time, so his life in anyway representing decent people will be over.

 

There could only be a by election if he resigns as an MP, but as things currently stand, he is legally entitled to continue as an MP under whatever banner he chooses. He could only become disqualified from being elected as a member of the House of Commons if he was found guilty of an offence and sentenced to more than one year in prison.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2024 by David Schweizer

[Ronaldo47]

Given the present backlog in the law courts, he could be safe for a couple of years.

[MtB]

Forgive my cynicism but I always imagined MPs pensions were non-contributory and funded from general taxation. 

 

 

[Tim Lewis]

15 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

 

There could only be a by election if he resigns as an MP, but as things currently stand, he is legally entitled to continue as an MP under whatever banner he chooses. He could only become disqualified from being elected as a member of the House of Commons if he was found guilty of an offence and sentenced to more than one year in prison.

 

 

A recall petition can force a by-election, these can be called for:

 

• Any custodial prison sentence, even if suspended. (A sentence longer than one year would lead to automatic removal under the Representation of the People Act 1981.)
• A conviction for providing false or misleading expenses claims.
• Suspension from the House of at least 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, 

[cuthound]

7 hours ago, Tim Lewis said:

A recall petition can force a by-election, these can be called for:

 

• Any custodial prison sentence, even if suspended. (A sentence longer than one year would lead to automatic removal under the Representation of the People Act 1981.)
• A conviction for providing false or misleading expenses claims.
• Suspension from the House of at least 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, 

 

Yup, it worked where I live to oust the ex-Tory, then independent MP Chris Pincher, but he hadn't done anything including constituency surgeries for over 2 years.