From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Obviously context is all. However in the situation described, could the statement as per subject line here be construed as a criminal act ?
Common assault maybe ?





https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-barman- applauded-raise-colours-34020941


A Birmingham barman was applauded after kicking members of Raise the
Colours out of a city centre pub.

Ryan Bridge - co-founder of the flag group, which has seen St George's
and Union flags hung from lamp-posts up and down the country - was thrown
out of The Queens Arms in Newhall Street last week.

A barman at the Jewellery Quarter pub was filmed telling the
controversial activist he was "not welcome" as he ushered him and his associates out of the boozer.

READ MORE: First picture of 'kind' pub boss fatally injured at Lichfield
bar as tributes pour in

Footage showed punters clapping as 44-year-old Bridge was given the boot.


Raise the Colours co-founder Ryan Bridge
View 2 Images
Raise the Colours co-founder Ryan Bridge (Image: Maja Smiejkowska/PA Wire)
A short clip of the confrontation, shared online by the flag group,
showed Bridge asking the barman if he was being told to leave "because
we've got a Raise the Colours T-shirt on?"

The Irish barman replied: "Yes, you're damn right. You guys aren't
welcome here."

Bridge hit back, saying, "You're the problem in the country, you are",
which sparked an argument between him and a male punter.

The flag group leader was then heard telling the customer: "I'll spark
you out."

Raise the Colours, founded in Birmingham by Bridge and Elliott Stanley,
has consistently maintained the movement is driven by "patriotic" reasons.

Members have been vocal about wanting to "stop" migrants illegally
crossing the English Channel.

However, the divisive group has been at the centre of controversies and
has faced criticism.

BirminghamLive contacted Raise the Colours and the barman for comment.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2026-05-30, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Obviously context is all. However in the situation described, could the statement as per subject line here be construed as a criminal act ?
Common assault maybe ?

It could clearly potentially be common assault, yes, if it puts the
person in fear of violence and there is no lawful excuse.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 30 May 2026 at 12:39:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2026-05-30, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Obviously context is all. However in the situation described, could the
statement as per subject line here be construed as a criminal act ?
Common assault maybe ?

It could clearly potentially be common assault, yes, if it puts the
person in fear of violence and there is no lawful excuse.

Also potentially more serious public order offences such as threatening behaviour.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 30 May 2026 at 12:39:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2026-05-30, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Obviously context is all. However in the situation described, could the
statement as per subject line here be construed as a criminal act ?
Common assault maybe ?

It could clearly potentially be common assault, yes, if it puts the
person in fear of violence and there is no lawful excuse.

Also potentially more serious public order offences such as threatening behaviour.

Presumably that, any other similar issues, which wasnrCOt necessarily one-sided, would be on the unedited video.

From the article previously linked:

Quote: Bridge hit back, saying, "You're the problem in the country, you
are", which sparked an argument between him and a male punter. Unquote

What isnrCOt known is what the rCymale punterrCO said that might have inflamed the confrontation.
--
Spike

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 30 May 2026 at 14:01:49 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 30 May 2026 at 12:39:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

On 2026-05-30, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Obviously context is all. However in the situation described, could the >>>> statement as per subject line here be construed as a criminal act ?
Common assault maybe ?

It could clearly potentially be common assault, yes, if it puts the
person in fear of violence and there is no lawful excuse.

Also potentially more serious public order offences such as threatening
behaviour.

Presumably that, any other similar issues, which wasnrCOt necessarily one-sided, would be on the unedited video.

From the article previously linked:

Quote: Bridge hit back, saying, "You're the problem in the country, you
are", which sparked an argument between him and a male punter. Unquote

What isnrCOt known is what the rCymale punterrCO said that might have inflamed
the confrontation.

I suspect magistrates are quite used to such excuses. If the other chap also committed an offence he should also be charged, but that doesn't usually work as mitigation for the currently-considered offence.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:01:49 +0000, Spike wrote:

What isnrCOt known is what the rCymale punterrCO said that might have inflamed
the confrontation.

Is that because two wrongs make a right ?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2026-05-30, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:01:49 +0000, Spike wrote:

What isnrCOt known is what the rCymale punterrCO said that might have inflamed
the confrontation.

Is that because two wrongs make a right ?

No, but if someone said to you that they didn't like your face and were
going to punch you, and in response you said "If you do, I'll spark you
out", then they would be guilty of assault and you would not.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2026-05-30, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2026 13:01:49 +0000, Spike wrote:

What isnrCOt known is what the rCymale punterrCO said that might have inflamed
the confrontation.

Is that because two wrongs make a right ?

No, but if someone said to you that they didn't like your face and were
going to punch you, and in response you said "If you do, I'll spark you
out", then they would be guilty of assault and you would not.

Thank you. ThatrCOs exactly the reason the contribution to the confrontation
by the rCymale punterrCO needs to be ascertained from the video, if indeed the latter has captured it.
--
Spike

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2