Search results

Pretty sure I stand by all I said about risk and how this is managed when someone is in prison for I think 55 years. Think I was suggesting it was inhuman not to give him access to a hot drink James timpson has already ensured kitchens like that one are not allowed for that sort of prisoner...

Sentencing guidelines were updated in 2020 too

Why? Point them out and I’m happy to explain myself

Love it I’m not willing to read 13 pages that answers all the questions I’m raising just in case I look like a prick Jog on

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf

I value your opinion and you but please read the transcript and then come back and debate You’re better than the current comments

Read the transcript and then come back on and comment on the facts not your prejudice

How?? Please read the judgement and then come back and explain how this is on the government in any way

Wow The transcript is really eye opening The appeal is that the solicitor misled her which is utterly rejected They found Lucy Connolly evidence on the important matters to be incredible. Hugely badly informed and an eye opener for anyone else who thinks they can publicly say what they...

Yep agreed Cause very few ‘middle class’ people ever have any experience of court or the law lots seems contradictory or out of date or unfair

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf

Interesting comment the three judges said the sentence wasn’t manifestly wrong and … "was substantially based on a version of events put forward by the applicant which we have rejected".

Again I think the point is correct the sentences are incomparable for the action but that doesn’t take into account what was happening or what Lucy Connolly was advised to plead guilty too on a Facebook group someone said they’d read that 30000 current prisoners were guilty of social media...

Truth

That’s true and I think right Which surprises me again what the appeal was and on what ground was it refused

He was not that would be a huge over reach I have no problem with the government doing all in its power to bring the rioting to swift conclusion but the judiciary are a-political

Nothing to do with starmer it’s a Tory givebrment set of legislation I have great trouble someone being imprisoned for what is said but this has to have boundaries Fundamentally though you’d hope a good solicitor would be able to show that there was no incitement behind the words however...

What I don’t understand is what has two tier justice or starmer making his speech on far right hate speech got to do with someone pleading guilty to inciting racial hatred Why aren’t they picking on the solicitor who gave such shocking advice?

False equivalence they haven’t admitted inciting racial hatred

Couldn’t give a toss