Drink and sleeping pills, not good

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 24 Nov 2006, 15:45

CHRISTINE SIMMONS was petrified when she awoke to find a strange man, wearing a white dress, lying on her couch muttering incoherently, having rearranged the pictures on her wall.

She probably would have been more alarmed if she'd known her intruder was the four-times world kickboxing champion and former Commonwealth boxing champion Adam Watt.

Watt, 31, appeared in court yesterday charged with resisting arrest, intimidation and two counts of trespass.

The Downing Centre Local Court heard that at 6.15am on April 22 Ms Simmons, 54, and her daughter Tiffany were asleep in their two-bedroom Dee Why flat when Ms Simmons was awakened by voices.

When she went to investigate she a saw a man lying on her couch. "I was absolutely terrified," she told the court. "This man was wearing a long white dress and mumbling incoherently."

The court heard that after Ms Simmons screamed for Mr Watt to leave, he walked into her kitchen. Terrified he was going to fetch a knife, she shouted at him that she was going to call the police. "If you call the police I will come back and then you will be in real trouble," Mr Watt told her.

When the Dee Why police arrived, they found Mr Watt back on the couch still muttering incoherently. During a scuffle with police outside the apartment block, Mr Watt suffered a laceration above his eye.

As it transpired, Mr Watt lived in the flat directly above Ms Simmons. He told the court he had gone to bed about 2.30am after dinner with friends during which he shared two bottles of wine with a female friend.

Having only recently returned from overseas, Mr Watt said he had been sleeping badly and took two Stilnox sleeping tablets. "I can't remember anything after that," he told the court. Mr Watt did recall the looks of "bewilderment and amusement" he received at the police station over his attire which, he told the court, was a dress from Dubai.

The magistrate Alison Viney dismissed all charges against Mr Watt, saying she could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt Mr Watt had meant to intimidate Ms Simmons nor that he had knowingly resisted the attempts to arrest him.

The two charges of trespass were dropped because police had brought the charges under the wrong section of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act.

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 25 Nov 2006, 06:58

Watt is lucky to have gotten away with that one - boxers seem to do the most bizarre things. You rarely hear these type of stories of a former footballer/tennis player.

Maybe its all the punches to the head??!

Watt was a good K1 kickboxer before turning to pro boxing and had a good dig on him.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Nov 2006, 07:29

How can he get away with that??.... he knew enough of what was going on to threaten the poor woman!... I suppose if he had murdered her but couldnt remember doing it he would have got off that as well!... madness!... the thug should be locked up and the key thrown away!!!...

dookus · Post by **dookus** » 25 Nov 2006, 07:40

silkov wrote:How can he get away with that??.... he knew enough of what was going on to threaten the poor woman!... I suppose if he had murdered her but couldnt remember doing it he would have got off that as well!... madness!... the thug should be locked up and the key thrown away!!!...

Do you write for the Daily Mail?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Nov 2006, 07:55

dookus wrote:
silkov wrote:How can he get away with that??.... he knew enough of what was going on to threaten the poor woman!... I suppose if he had murdered her but couldnt remember doing it he would have got off that as well!... madness!... the thug should be locked up and the key thrown away!!!...
Do you write for the Daily Mail?

Do you write for the Sun??...

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 25 Nov 2006, 08:26

dookus wrote:
silkov wrote:How can he get away with that??.... he knew enough of what was going on to threaten the poor woman!... I suppose if he had murdered her but couldnt remember doing it he would have got off that as well!... madness!... the thug should be locked up and the key thrown away!!!...
Do you write for the Daily Mail?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Nov 2006, 08:35

I suppose its the fashion these days to go easy on someone if they say that they cant remember doing what they did but he certainly still had the sense at the time to threaten the woman didnt he??... why should he be let off because he was off his head??... I know what I'd feel like if it had been my mothers flat he'd walked into... the guy sounds like a dangerous headcase...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Nov 2006, 08:37

If he'd stabbed her or beaten her up should he have got away with that too due to not knowing what he was doing???... the mind boggles!...
yet refuse to pay all your council tax and you'll end up inside for 3 months!...

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 25 Nov 2006, 08:44

silkov wrote:If he'd stabbed her or beaten her up should he have got away with that too due to not knowing what he was doing???... the mind boggles!...
yet refuse to pay all your council tax and you'll end up inside for 3 months!...

Well you can't convict him on a if.
I once woke up on an old girlfriends sofa, with no recolection of how i got there, luckily she didn't call the police. Apparently i was talking shite and eating her cooked chicken from the fridge when she found me.

To this day i still can't remember going to her house or even how i got back to that town.
I'm not saying Adam Watt was in the right, because he wasn't, but i do know how you can end up in that situation.

And no, I wasn't wearing a dress. :)

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Nov 2006, 08:53

topper123 wrote:
silkov wrote:If he'd stabbed her or beaten her up should he have got away with that too due to not knowing what he was doing???... the mind boggles!...
yet refuse to pay all your council tax and you'll end up inside for 3 months!...
Well you can't convict him on a if.
I once woke up on an old girlfriends sofa, with no recolection of how i got there, luckily she didn't call the police. Apparently i was talking shite and eating her cooked chicken from the fridge when she found me.

To this day i still can't remember going to her house or even how i got back to that town.
I'm not saying Adam Watt was in the right, because he wasn't, but i do know how you can end up in that situation.

And no, I wasn't wearing a dress. :)

How easy is it to go into someone elses home though?... the evidence is that he was in her home and that he threatend her, the police found him there so she didnt dream it up, so why he has got off with a slapped wrist is beyond me... maybe its the dress??.... but I dont see not being able to remember as being a real excuse.... plus loss of memory in these type of circumstances is often rather convenient... and if she or anyone else had used force against him in trying to remove him from her home theyd most likely be in prison now, ...because he didnt know what he was doing!!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Nov 2006, 08:56

topper123 wrote:
silkov wrote:If he'd stabbed her or beaten her up should he have got away with that too due to not knowing what he was doing???... the mind boggles!...
yet refuse to pay all your council tax and you'll end up inside for 3 months!...
Well you can't convict him on a if.
I once woke up on an old girlfriends sofa, with no recolection of how i got there, luckily she didn't call the police. Apparently i was talking shite and eating her cooked chicken from the fridge when she found me.

To this day i still can't remember going to her house or even how i got back to that town.
I'm not saying Adam Watt was in the right, because he wasn't, but i do know how you can end up in that situation.

And no, I wasn't wearing a dress. :)

Your situation is a bit different as you knew the person etc... did you pay her for the chicken???

Chesney_Chambers · Post by **Chesney_Chambers** » 25 Nov 2006, 08:56

silkov wrote:I suppose its the fashion these days to go easy on someone if they say that they cant remember doing what they did but he certainly still had the sense at the time to threaten the woman didnt he??... why should he be let off because he was off his head??... I know what I'd feel like if it had been my mothers flat he'd walked into... the guy sounds like a dangerous headcase...

If he'd attacked the women then there is a different case to answer and he should have been punished IMO, but this just seems like a pissed/pilled up stumble about. Not much harm done

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 25 Nov 2006, 15:12

silkov wrote:
topper123 wrote:
silkov wrote:If he'd stabbed her or beaten her up should he have got away with that too due to not knowing what he was doing???... the mind boggles!...
yet refuse to pay all your council tax and you'll end up inside for 3 months!...
Well you can't convict him on a if.
I once woke up on an old girlfriends sofa, with no recolection of how i got there, luckily she didn't call the police. Apparently i was talking shite and eating her cooked chicken from the fridge when she found me.

To this day i still can't remember going to her house or even how i got back to that town.
I'm not saying Adam Watt was in the right, because he wasn't, but i do know how you can end up in that situation.

And no, I wasn't wearing a dress. :)
Your situation is a bit different as you knew the person etc... did you pay her for the chicken???

its funny, but she never really talked to me since....

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Nov 2006, 15:41

It's nothing to do with current fashions, it's called diminished responsibility. It's obvious he was off his nut given his bizzare attire, and the fact is nobody got hurt, so what would you have the law do?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Nov 2006, 15:44

silkov wrote:
topper123 wrote:
silkov wrote:If he'd stabbed her or beaten her up should he have got away with that too due to not knowing what he was doing???... the mind boggles!...
yet refuse to pay all your council tax and you'll end up inside for 3 months!...
Well you can't convict him on a if.
I once woke up on an old girlfriends sofa, with no recolection of how i got there, luckily she didn't call the police. Apparently i was talking shite and eating her cooked chicken from the fridge when she found me.

To this day i still can't remember going to her house or even how i got back to that town.
I'm not saying Adam Watt was in the right, because he wasn't, but i do know how you can end up in that situation.

And no, I wasn't wearing a dress. :)
How easy is it to go into someone elses home though?... the evidence is that he was in her home and that he threatend her, the police found him there so she didnt dream it up, so why he has got off with a slapped wrist is beyond me... maybe its the dress??.... but I dont see not being able to remember as being a real excuse.... plus loss of memory in these type of circumstances is often rather convenient... and if she or anyone else had used force against him in trying to remove him from her home theyd most likely be in prison now, ...because he didnt know what he was doing!!

You are talking tripe, I am sure if she had used force to eject him, absolutely nothing would have happened to her whatsoever. A lot is often made about the pensioner who got done for shooting those lads, but let's get the facts straight, he shot one of them in the back with a shotgun while the guy was running away, and paralysed him for life, that's why he went to jail.

Why do people get so reactionary over these stories. Ok, the woman was frightened and freaked out, but nothing happened to her and everyone lived to tell the tale relatively unscathed.

WildWaylon · Post by **WildWaylon** » 25 Nov 2006, 16:27

What puzzles me is how he got in, didnt she lock her door before going to bed? - If he broke in and caused damage to her property then a crime has been committed but it doesnt sound as if that has happened - Our prisons are full so we have to lock up the very worst in our society and he quite obviously isnt - This guy certainly frightened the woman but did her no harm so a slapped wrist is about right I think.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Nov 2006, 17:55

silkov wrote:If he'd stabbed her or beaten her up should he have got away with that too due to not knowing what he was doing???... the mind boggles!...
yet refuse to pay all your council tax and you'll end up inside for 3 months!...

Had he shot or stabbed her he would have gone to jail, no doubt, he would probably have done less time on the grounds of diminished responsibility, but there is no way he would have got off scott free.

As for the council tax, that just confirms that most of the law is geared towards money and property.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Nov 2006, 18:10

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
silkov wrote:
topper123 wrote: Well you can't convict him on a if.
I once woke up on an old girlfriends sofa, with no recolection of how i got there, luckily she didn't call the police. Apparently i was talking shite and eating her cooked chicken from the fridge when she found me.

To this day i still can't remember going to her house or even how i got back to that town.
I'm not saying Adam Watt was in the right, because he wasn't, but i do know how you can end up in that situation.

And no, I wasn't wearing a dress. :)
How easy is it to go into someone elses home though?... the evidence is that he was in her home and that he threatend her, the police found him there so she didnt dream it up, so why he has got off with a slapped wrist is beyond me... maybe its the dress??.... but I dont see not being able to remember as being a real excuse.... plus loss of memory in these type of circumstances is often rather convenient... and if she or anyone else had used force against him in trying to remove him from her home theyd most likely be in prison now, ...because he didnt know what he was doing!!
You are talking tripe, I am sure if she had used force to eject him, absolutely nothing would have happened to her whatsoever. A lot is often made about the pensioner who got done for shooting those lads, but let's get the facts straight, he shot one of them in the back with a shotgun while the guy was running away, and paralysed him for life, that's why he went to jail.

Why do people get so reactionary over these stories. Ok, the woman was frightened and freaked out, but nothing happened to her and everyone lived to tell the tale relatively unscathed.

Tripe is it?... what would you do if you found a strange man out of his head in you house?.... offer him a cup of tea?... maybe I'm a bit of a reactionary but I tend to think a mans/womans home is their castle and if you intrude onto someone elses property for no good reason then you should face the consequences, legal or otherwise. I realise there is a liberterian view that unless the intruder shoots or stabs you first then they should be met with nothing stronger than tea and cake, but that doesnt wash with me. As for the Tony Martin story, how you can sympathize with the scum that burgled him about 20+ times is beyond me mate, ...they got what they deserved... one of them has even offended since then... nuff said I think... its just a shame he didnt kill all of them... I've been burgled and would have no hesitation in shooting the culprits anywhere I could to stop them doing it again, if I got the chance....

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Nov 2006, 18:21

The purpose of the law, is to protect people from what we would have in a lawless society, namely people rampaging around righting wrongs and taking the law into their own hands.

Shooting someone in the back with a shotgun is attempted murder, whether they attempted to burgle him or not. I'm not siding with anyone mate, it's just a fact that he blew someone to smithereens with a shotgun, and the fact they were fleeing the scene had a big

You cannot have a situation where people feel they can take the law into their own hands in those situations and shoot people dead.

Crime is a fact of life, always has been, always will be, deficiencies in the law cannot be used as an excuse for vigiliantism. Perhaps you should go and live in the USA where they have the right to bear arms, and have a perfect society?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Nov 2006, 19:16

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The purpose of the law, is to protect people from what we would have in a lawless society, namely people rampaging around righting wrongs and taking the law into their own hands.

Shooting someone in the back with a shotgun is attempted murder, whether they attempted to burgle him or not. I'm not siding with anyone mate, it's just a fact that he blew someone to smithereens with a shotgun, and the fact they were fleeing the scene had a big

You cannot have a situation where people feel they can take the law into their own hands in those situations and shoot people dead.

Crime is a fact of life, always has been, always will be, deficiencies in the law cannot be used as an excuse for vigiliantism. Perhaps you should go and live in the USA where they have the right to bear arms, and have a perfect society?

Yes, they were fleeing the scene in order to return at a later time no doubt... if you know all the facts about the Martin story you'll know that he was burgled about 25 times and the police would/could do nothing.... I actually hate guns, so dont think I'm some gun or knife weilding redneck because I'm not mate, but the fact is if the guy hadnt been robbing Martins place he wouldnt have been shot and I'm not the only person who thought that Martin was provoked into doing what he did... I know what its like to be burgled and can only imagine what it would feel like to have it happen 20+ times with the police completely hopeless and disinterested... so the guy who got shot had it coming as far as I'm concerned... why should someone have the right to go into your or my property and then walk away unscathed if they are disturbed, only to comeback another time or some place else??... you may call defending yourself and your property vigilantism but I call it a persons right... and at the end of the day what is worse a vigilante or a burgler/theif/mugger etc???.... Maybe if there was stronger sentences for people who did these kind of things it would be a deterrent, most get off with community service or a few months after a couple of offences and most see Prison as a holiday camp, ...yet theres still people going on about showing these people more understanding and treating them better etc... if I was discussing this 15 or 10 years ago I'd have an outlook more like yours but I'm speaking from experience now rather than youthful idealism...

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Nov 2006, 12:37

Youthful idealism!

I'm neither youthful nor an idealist. I just dont want to live in a world where shotgun wielding old men blast holes in people at will.

The funny this is, all the figures show that crime is actually falling, and there are more people in our prisons than ever before, yet the perception is that we live in a dangerous lawless society, becuase it suits the government to have us think that so they can push through ever more draconian legislation.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 26 Nov 2006, 13:09

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Youthful idealism!

I'm neither youthful nor an idealist. I just dont want to live in a world where shotgun wielding old men blast holes in people at will.

The funny this is, all the figures show that crime is actually falling, and there are more people in our prisons than ever before, yet the perception is that we live in a dangerous lawless society, becuase it suits the government to have us think that so they can push through ever more draconian legislation.

Do you believe the crime 'figures'?... crime going down!... now thats a laugh!.... go to any town centre or into London most nights and tell me crime has gone down... utter rubbish!... the powers that be would also have us believe that the NHS has never been so healthy!!.... and quite a few other things besides!... and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the world is a safer place for its 'invasion'!!.....

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Nov 2006, 13:39

Oh how convenient, it's amazing how often that line of defence is used when people are talking cobblers. Conveniently the figures are always wrong, though of course, if they supported you anecdotal evidence based crime statistics, I'm sure they would suddently become 'right.'

There are always inaccuracies in figures, but most people who are qualified to have an opinion on crime, agree that the general trend is that crime is diminishing, not increasing.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 26 Nov 2006, 13:51

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Oh how convenient, it's amazing how often that line of defence is used when people are talking cobblers. Conveniently the figures are always wrong, though of course, if they supported you anecdotal evidence based crime statistics, I'm sure they would suddently become 'right.'

There are always inaccuracies in figures, but most people who are qualified to have an opinion on crime, agree that the general trend is that crime is diminishing, not increasing.

I suppose thats why our prisons are so full then?... cant have it both ways mate, if crime is going down why are the prisons overflowing??... or are they all council tax dodgers??!

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Nov 2006, 14:01

Err well, if more people are in prison, then surely there are less criminals in the streets, or did you not think of that one?

An increase in the number of prisons, means more people being given custodial sentences not more crimes being committed. Many of those in prison will obviously have been in there for some time, it's not like they all got slung in jail yesterday is it?