Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Read the transcript and then come back on and comment on the facts not your prejudice
Southport Stabbing (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I value your opinion and you but please read the transcript and then come back and debate
You’re better than the current comments
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Has she a history of formenting trouble and advocating violence? If not I cannot believe the sentence imposed and served so far is not excessively punative.
No I am not going to waste my time reading a transcript, post the salient points that convinced you if you want.
When someone like Nick Griffin never went to prison but Connelly has I don't think you understand how far the British justice system has been turned into a political weapon to silence dissent and freedom of speech even if offensive.
No I am not going to waste my time reading a transcript, post the salient points that convinced you if you want.
When someone like Nick Griffin never went to prison but Connelly has I don't think you understand how far the British justice system has been turned into a political weapon to silence dissent and freedom of speech even if offensive.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
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
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Shots fired by Pete, maybe if I was you I’d go back and view some of the comments you were making about things being ‘inhuman’ was a disgrace
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What the fuck are you talking about? She wasn't stating a public opinion she was inciting violence. Griffin never said anything as stark as that.
The powers used to convict her were brought in 1986 by Maggie Thatcher's government, the relevant section remains unchanged in England since then. Are you saying that she made the British justice system a political weapon to silence dissent and freedom of speech?
Last edited:
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Why?
Point them out and I’m happy to explain myself
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Sentencing guidelines were updated in 2020 too
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
The whole situation saying it’s inhuman to let that scumbag have boiling water and then you getting all defensive
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
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. Marvellous whataboutery though
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
The fucker shouldn’t even have access to cold water let alone a hot drink after what he did, ridiculous comment again from yourself
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
And ……..
This was an appeal on the grounds she was mis advised by her solicitor she wasn’t
It was found incredible that an intelligent lady who articulated her case well would have not understood the waiver she signed and claimed her solicitor didn’t give her the appropriate advice
Looks extremely logical and reasonable that she was aware of the sentence level when pleading guilty and that she was pleading guilty to inciting racial hatred at the highest level on statute
Irrespective I’m still troubled by a prison sentence for words however heinous but the law is the law
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Ok yep the hang em flog em brigade whataboutery. How do you manage that person. You’ve no idea have you
fatso
Well-Known Member
I think people feel the sentence doesn't reflect the crime, I'm not saying that a crime wasn't committed, clearly it was.
But (imo) releasing other prisoners, some of whom have committed far worse offenses and then imprisoning a mother for a post seems to be very OTT.
How many of us have said something in the heat of the moment that we later regret,
(Like "will you marry me"
)In this case, once you post on the cesspit of social media, it's there for everyone to see.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Wouldn’t that be the Public Order Act 1986?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think people feel the sentence doesn't reflect the crime, I'm not saying that a crime wasn't committed, clearly it was.
But (imo) releasing other prisoners, some of whom have committed far worse offenses and then imprisoning a mother for a post seems to be very OTT.
How many of us have said something in the heat of the moment that we later regret,
(Like "will you marry me"
In this case, once you post on the cesspit of social media, it's there for everyone to see.
a mother
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Agree with all of thatI think people feel the sentence doesn't reflect the crime, I'm not saying that a crime wasn't committed, clearly it was.
But (imo) releasing other prisoners, some of whom have committed far worse offenses and then imprisoning a mother for a post seems to be very OTT.
How many of us have said something in the heat of the moment that we later regret,
(Like "will you marry me"
In this case, once you post on the cesspit of social media, it's there for everyone to see.
The transcript makes it clear why the lowest level is 3 years
I would hazard a guess that not many of us have called for the burning down of migrant accommodation during a period of widespread racist violence.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Absolutely embarrassing once again, get a fucking grip
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
That’s part of the inconsistency of the defence and mitigation and the appeal
She’s really suffered losing her child and understands how those affected feel so didn’t empathise but sought to inflame the situation and cause more distress and fear
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Your opinion
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Any comment on what we’re discussing
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Maybe she’ll reconsider breaking the law next time. No time for people inciting violence during an active riot. Sorry.
Trying to incite violence is a crime. Sorry.
Seems like Connolly wasn’t the only one trying to “play the mental health card”.
fatso
Well-Known Member
It is, and if you read my first post above, you'd see I say as much.
But the punishment has to fit the crime.
Was anybody motivated to burn down a hotel purely on the strength of one social media post that was seen by hardly anyone?
It's not even as if she had any followers.
And let's remember, Starmer was the man who refused to prosecute Jimmy Saville, even when presented with overwhelming evidence.
2 tier justice system?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
2 tier fact system it seems. That’s simply untrue.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The part of her defence that relates to mistrust of persons of authority is strange for somebody married to a Tory councillor imo
fatso
Well-Known Member
I disagree,
But how about Starmer's refusal to sanction a full public enquiry into the Muslim rape gangs???
You can be locked up for a post, but don't even get investigated properly for organised sexual abuse and rape of under age girls?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What are you seeking to get out of such an inquiry that has not already been investigated and reported upon?
She has thousands of followers and the post was shared almost a thousand times, viewed by hundreds of thousands of people.
Whether or not someone acted on her deranged calls for violence does not diminish the seriousness of the crime - it would only make it worse.
fatso
Well-Known Member
Justice for the victims would be a start.
We know the horrendous crimes were committed, why were there no prosecutions when the perpetrators are known to the police?