Conservative representative Nick Buckmaster faces imitation gun charge after incident in Chingford

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Cllr Nick Buckmaster will appear in court this afternoon. Cllr Nick Buckmaster will appear in court this afternoon.

The trial of a Conservative councillor accused of threatening a man with an air gun is due to begin today.

Nick Buckmaster, of Mount Echo Drive in Chingford, is due to appear at Snaresbrook Crown Court at 3pm today to answer one count of possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear and unlawful violence to Brett Stark.

The Larkswood ward councillor was refused bail and has been remanded in custody since January 18 when he was arrested after an incident in College Gardens, Chingford.

He has not yet entered a plea.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:13am Mon 3 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

I don't think this was quite the effective Council opposition approach that most people were thinking of.
I don't think this was quite the effective Council opposition approach that most people were thinking of. Alan_1976

9:26pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
I don't think this was quite the effective Council opposition approach that most people were thinking of.
Let's hope that you do not jeopardise the trial costing the taxpayer thousands by your ridiculous comment.

He deserves a fair trial, like you would if in a spot of bother.

The matter is subjudice, you may have to go before the courts for contempt.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: I don't think this was quite the effective Council opposition approach that most people were thinking of.[/p][/quote]Let's hope that you do not jeopardise the trial costing the taxpayer thousands by your ridiculous comment. He deserves a fair trial, like you would if in a spot of bother. The matter is subjudice, you may have to go before the courts for contempt. Villagecranberry

9:32pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
I don't think this was quite the effective Council opposition approach that most people were thinking of.
Cheap shot also.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: I don't think this was quite the effective Council opposition approach that most people were thinking of.[/p][/quote]Cheap shot also. Villagecranberry

9:52pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
I don't think this was quite the effective Council opposition approach that most people were thinking of.
Let's hope that you do not jeopardise the trial costing the taxpayer thousands by your ridiculous comment.

He deserves a fair trial, like you would if in a spot of bother.

The matter is subjudice, you may have to go before the courts for contempt.
There you go using that word subjudice again which doesn't actually exist. Perhaps you meant sub judice.

I hope we don't have to have the discussion where we explain to you the difference between things which are "real" and things that you just make up.

Just saying...
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: I don't think this was quite the effective Council opposition approach that most people were thinking of.[/p][/quote]Let's hope that you do not jeopardise the trial costing the taxpayer thousands by your ridiculous comment. He deserves a fair trial, like you would if in a spot of bother. The matter is subjudice, you may have to go before the courts for contempt.[/p][/quote]There you go using that word subjudice again which doesn't actually exist. Perhaps you meant sub judice. I hope we don't have to have the discussion where we explain to you the difference between things which are "real" and things that you just make up. Just saying... Alan_1976

11:16pm Mon 3 Feb 14

mdj says...

Vc is right about the sub judice issue. It's a bit rash to allow comments on a story of this nature, at this stage, especially since quite a few of the readers will have ideas about what the back story may be.
Vc is right about the sub judice issue. It's a bit rash to allow comments on a story of this nature, at this stage, especially since quite a few of the readers will have ideas about what the back story may be. mdj

2:31am Tue 4 Feb 14

Villagecranberry says...

mdj wrote:
Vc is right about the sub judice issue. It's a bit rash to allow comments on a story of this nature, at this stage, especially since quite a few of the readers will have ideas about what the back story may be.
Pure schadenfreude. He enjoys 'kicking people when they are down. He worries about a space between a 'b' and a 'c' but not letting a man have a fair trial because of political orientation.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Vc is right about the sub judice issue. It's a bit rash to allow comments on a story of this nature, at this stage, especially since quite a few of the readers will have ideas about what the back story may be.[/p][/quote]Pure schadenfreude. He enjoys 'kicking people when they are down. He worries about a space between a 'b' and a 'c' but not letting a man have a fair trial because of political orientation. Villagecranberry

6:39am Tue 4 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
Vc is right about the sub judice issue. It's a bit rash to allow comments on a story of this nature, at this stage, especially since quite a few of the readers will have ideas about what the back story may be.
And completely incorrect about my comment being in contempt of court. Try not to encourage him.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Vc is right about the sub judice issue. It's a bit rash to allow comments on a story of this nature, at this stage, especially since quite a few of the readers will have ideas about what the back story may be.[/p][/quote]And completely incorrect about my comment being in contempt of court. Try not to encourage him. Alan_1976

6:50am Tue 4 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
mdj wrote:
Vc is right about the sub judice issue. It's a bit rash to allow comments on a story of this nature, at this stage, especially since quite a few of the readers will have ideas about what the back story may be.
Pure schadenfreude. He enjoys 'kicking people when they are down. He worries about a space between a 'b' and a 'c' but not letting a man have a fair trial because of political orientation.
That's a big word for you. Did you find it when looking up what people had described your normal behaviour on this site Cornbeefur?

Perhaps 2:31 am would be a good time to consider resting instead of ranting and raving on here.

The only person commenting here who seems to think political orientation is relevant is you.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Vc is right about the sub judice issue. It's a bit rash to allow comments on a story of this nature, at this stage, especially since quite a few of the readers will have ideas about what the back story may be.[/p][/quote]Pure schadenfreude. He enjoys 'kicking people when they are down. He worries about a space between a 'b' and a 'c' but not letting a man have a fair trial because of political orientation.[/p][/quote]That's a big word for you. Did you find it when looking up what people had described your normal behaviour on this site Cornbeefur? Perhaps 2:31 am would be a good time to consider resting instead of ranting and raving on here. The only person commenting here who seems to think political orientation is relevant is you. Alan_1976

7:52am Tue 4 Feb 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
mdj wrote:
Vc is right about the sub judice issue. It's a bit rash to allow comments on a story of this nature, at this stage, especially since quite a few of the readers will have ideas about what the back story may be.
Pure schadenfreude. He enjoys 'kicking people when they are down. He worries about a space between a 'b' and a 'c' but not letting a man have a fair trial because of political orientation.
That's a big word for you. Did you find it when looking up what people had described your normal behaviour on this site Cornbeefur?

Perhaps 2:31 am would be a good time to consider resting instead of ranting and raving on here.

The only person commenting here who seems to think political orientation is relevant is you.
Just saying?
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Vc is right about the sub judice issue. It's a bit rash to allow comments on a story of this nature, at this stage, especially since quite a few of the readers will have ideas about what the back story may be.[/p][/quote]Pure schadenfreude. He enjoys 'kicking people when they are down. He worries about a space between a 'b' and a 'c' but not letting a man have a fair trial because of political orientation.[/p][/quote]That's a big word for you. Did you find it when looking up what people had described your normal behaviour on this site Cornbeefur? Perhaps 2:31 am would be a good time to consider resting instead of ranting and raving on here. The only person commenting here who seems to think political orientation is relevant is you.[/p][/quote]Just saying? Villagecranberry

8:41am Tue 4 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

I see you're quoting there from "Suitable Methods of public discourse by Cornbeefur"

Other titles in the series include:
"Transparent financial accounting by Waltham Forest council"
"Geopolitics by Sarah Palin"
"Weather patterns and their causes by UKIP"
"Healthy eating by Eric Pickles"
"How to win a general election by Neil Kinnock"
I see you're quoting there from "Suitable Methods of public discourse by Cornbeefur" Other titles in the series include: "Transparent financial accounting by Waltham Forest council" "Geopolitics by Sarah Palin" "Weather patterns and their causes by UKIP" "Healthy eating by Eric Pickles" "How to win a general election by Neil Kinnock" Alan_1976

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree