MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Labour got 33.7% of the vote which, iirc, was about 20% of the electorate. Does that show how batshit their ideas were / are?
Outcome could be a close run thing next time, depending on turnout. Don’t be too smug.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote which, iirc, was about 20% of the electorate. Does that show how batshit their ideas were / are?Still don’t think they can. There seems to be a hard 30% cap on batshit still. Tory losses are going less and less to them and they’ll be at their peak right now.
I hope so tooIn fact a Muslim man did and he’s going to court and I hope he’s convicted. People need to realise Twitter isn’t real life and you can’t run about making death threats at people.
The uneven playing field arising from lack of funding for legal representation is disgusting.I still don’t get the two tier system argument
And it’s certainly can’t be laid at the door of keir starmer unless from him time at dpp
The rest is a reasonable challenge to the justice system but ffs Boris doesn’t take the time to find out facts and evidence it’s all pomp and bluster and fluff
there are about 100 tiers of justice and the really inflammatory one is that if you don’t have any money you can fuckin whistle for justice
You keep suggesting your opinions are being repressed - why?Everyone has an equal right to have opinions and to express them. Terribly sorry we are not all left wing sheep like you.
She used words and didn’t actually “go and do it”.I hope so too
I fear though that much like the Lucy Connolly case there will be a nuance around using words rather than actually doing it and her problem was what she said and when she said it and then ignoring the advice of the solicitor and then gettting a new one to use the victim approach to justice which was plain stupid
And also that he doesn’t know that due to us having a written/unwritten constitution we don’t actually have ‘freedom of Speech’ in this country.All that shows is that silly fat wanker doesn't know what free speech means.
It’s how my opinions are immediately dismissed as “bat shit” and / or worthless.You keep suggesting your opinions are being repressed - why?
It’s a forum, Malcolm.It’s how my opinions are immediately dismissed as “bat shit” and / or worthless.
Could push me either way. Keep them to myself or dig my heels in and carry on expressing them. I have considered both options and even I self censor from time to time.
At the moment I am not allowing myself to succumb to left wing key board warriors.
And also that he doesn’t know that due to us having a written/unwritten constitution we don’t actually have ‘freedom of Speech’ in this country.
Her defence appears to have been I’m guilty of inciting racial hatred and despite guidance from the solicitor on how to minimise her sentence she ignored it and then appealed on the grounds of she wasn’t told about it and the appeal judges said tjats incredible and not credibleShe used words and didn’t actually “go and do it”.
Yep legislation in 86 was in response to poll tax riots probably and 2020 sentencing was down to Boris and his mates
Does that mean it’s a ‘right’? Or something to consider. Well googled btw.The main legal framework for freedom of expression is found in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This means the UK's courts must consider this provision when dealing with cases involving freedom of expression.
Ironic? Or bat shit?
Does that mean it’s a ‘right’? Or something to consider. Well googled btw.
Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:
An authority may be allowed to restrict your freedom of expression if, for example, you express views that encourage racial or religious hatred.
- protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
- prevent disorder or crime
- protect health or morals
- protect the rights and reputations of other people
- prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
- maintain the authority and impartiality of judges
Thank you I was going to check my facts but thought sod it im sure someone else will knowIt was 5 years before the poll tax riots. It's most likely in response to the miner's strike and football violence in the early 80s.
It does say something when a huge proportion of our society thinks fuck it you should be able to say what you want without consequences
To be fair I think that too and it should be a very high bar before you break the law and higher before you’re imprisoned
And free speech advocates often just mean they want the freedom to say what they like when they want but not allow other to say anything oftenI think that’s fair. And I don’t agree with a lot of the laws on the statute around this, but they are the laws. To be honest while ideologically I’m pretty hard line freedom of speech, that opinion has changed a lot seeing what’s done with modern communications tech and the damage it’s doing. There has to be a balance somewhere when everyone has a direct line to the entire planet.
This guy didn't get long did he!Read the judgment
The minimum was 36 months
+ 6 months due to the fact that is was a sensitive environment she did it in which she was well aware of, but, taking into account her circumstances including caring obligations
- 25% for guilty plea
If a Muslim man had stated that all pubs should be firebombed there would be uproar on here (rightly so)
Just checked the sentencing guidelines
No one on here has agreed with what she posted, the issue is the length of the prison sentence, and the fact that violent criminals are being released early from prison, and rape gangs arnt even being investigated.Who on here do you think would agree with someone demanding that a hotel full of innocent people be set on fire?
Despite your attempts to obfuscate and pretend this woman is in prison for her views on immigration, there is zero chance of this sentence being handed down without her appalling calls for violence, which no right-minded person would agree with.
I definitely think the sentencing guidelines need to be re-examined.Just checked the sentencing guidelines
Violent disorder- section 2 Public Order Act 1986
In this article Public Order Offences lawyer Quentin Hunt looks at the offence of Violent Disorder and examines what has to be proven by the prosecution and how such cases can be successfully defended.www.criminaldefencebarrister.co.uk
So one can argue that the sentencing guidelines are out of kilter but (and I’m not suggesting you were, were you? ) you can’t say this person was given less of a sentence because he was non white
He went out looking to assault and cause harm to white English people. An Asian mob armed with knives and machetes surrounded a pub with innocent people which had to be barricaded from inside.Just checked the sentencing guidelines
Violent disorder- section 2 Public Order Act 1986
In this article Public Order Offences lawyer Quentin Hunt looks at the offence of Violent Disorder and examines what has to be proven by the prosecution and how such cases can be successfully defended.www.criminaldefencebarrister.co.uk
So one can argue that the sentencing guidelines are out of kilter but (and I’m not suggesting you were, were you? ) you can’t say this person was given less of a sentence because he was non white
I wonder why these people didn't shout up when young girls where being drugged and gang raped by Pakistani grooming gangs?
It's certainly a a sector that may need revisions, I'd actually have the platforms for speech crimes legislated against, how to do it though I mean they're just amplifier to nutter's that wouldn't get an audience half the time!He went out looking to assault and cause harm to white English people. An Asian mob armed with knives and machetes surrounded a pub with innocent people which had to be barricaded from inside.
pointing out the 2 tier system of justice AND outrage.
Big if in their, shmmeeeIt’s a limited right.
It’s a comparison about how “justice” is differentially applied in this country. In a two tier sort of way I suppose. Puts tin hat on as the majority in here are simply not prepared to accept that as a hypothesis.Probably not shouting about it because that's not what's being talked about in here atm. Does that need to be part of a conversation about what this woman did and the sentence she got? You can start a thread to talk about that if you want to.
Bloody hell, that’s ridiculous wonder how soon he will be out if he doesn’t throw scalding liquids at prison officers?
This tedious watch-tapping is the last refuge of those who are either no longer willing or able to engage with the facts, when their own take on a situation is challenged. Absolutely lame af.I wonder why these people didn't shout up when young girls where being drugged and gang raped by Pakistani grooming gangs?
I can only assume that some people consider that to be less of a crime.
It’s a comparison about how “justice” is differentially applied in this country. In a two tier sort of way I suppose. Puts tin hat on as the majority in here are simply not prepared to accept that as a hypothesis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?