RuamRudy

Cracker formed from the ashes of Camper Van Beethoven - they are still on the go but never really hit the highs that I thought they deserved when I first started listening to them in the mid 90s.

There have even been some of them here boasting about doing so.

Those who were physically born male should not be competing in women's sporting events, even if they have fully transitioned. Most likely they will have retained the physical traits of being born male, giving them a genetic advantage over those who were born female. This should be adopted as a universal ruling by all sporting bodies and this stupid and divisive debate put to bed once and for all.

Tommy Robinson is a hypocrite when it comes to opposing child sexual exploitation "... he himself has an appalling record of confronting paedophilia and abuse within his own team and amongst his supporters. Lennon has consistently ignored or even defended occurrences of these crimes in his own ranks, proving that he is more concerned with attacking Muslims than actually combatting CSE or challenging sexual violence. "It is now also clear that he has no interest in calling out child abuse amongst his own supporters. "

I don't think that there are any states which execute homosexuals specifically because of their sexuality. Generally, there would be other factors at play...

You didn't ask a question. You made a fatuous statement and ended it with a question mark. But you seem to be struggling with your comprehension so let me make it simple for you. That Yaxley Lennon is a drug dealing, wife beating, fraudster, peado supporting racist is irrelevant in this case - even if he was a decent, honest and honourable bloke he still broke a court imposed restriction on reporting a trial when it was in progress. That is why he was justifiably charged with contempt of court. On the other hand, there was no restriction on making jurors aware of points of law. And nor should there be. Every one of us should want that everyone involved in our justice system should be as aware as possible of the law and it's limits. When you start to restrict knowledge and awareness of the law, you are on the road to fascism.

If you are only going to use it for a short time, you can get 15 days free trial of Zoho Analytics. It takes a little bit of a learning curve but it's incredibly flexible and can really help data analysis and presentation. After the 15 days, however, you will need to sign up to a paid account. It starts at around $20 a month.

Why do you feel the need to twist points? Surely if your words had merit, you wouldn't need to twist them so?

Indeed - one was deliberately flouting a court order, the other was highlighting a published point of law.

Are you normally so quick to resort to insulating those whose opinions you disagree with? She was not trying to put pressure on anyone. She was making a point of law. What she said was absolute, recorded fact, nothing more.

Fully agreed, but totally irrelevant to my post.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the charge against the wife beating fraudster and drug dealer, Yaxley Lennon, was justified. But in the case of the retired social worker, I would happily argue that the law, if applied correctly in this case, is an ass. In fact, it's a dangerous ass.

Evidence - they are instructed only to take into account evidence presented to them in court. The accused in this case was not providing any comment on the facts of that particular case. She was making clear an aspect of the law.

No, he was deliberately flouting a reporting ban by live streaming the events and aggressively filming the defendants when he already knew that there were restrictions in place against doing so. He was not holding a banner which stated a fact of law; he was holding a camera contrary to an earlier ruling by the judge. So you see, you are still wrong.

I have since read the details of his arrest. I am happy to confirm that it bears no similarities whatsoever with the case I mentioned other than they both took place outside a court. Glad to have cleared that up for you.

I don't recall the details of his banner. Did it also state an objective fact of law?

She wasn't some venomous thug threatening retribution on the jurors should they conclude in a certain way. She was holding up an excerpt from a law book. She was highlighting a fact of law If that scares you or scares the government and the judiciary then we are in a very bad place already.

Not only is that complete and utter nonsense, it's scary to think that people who think like you exist in society. It is willing compliance such as yours that allows government corruption to exist. Germany didn't become fascist overnight. It took people like you, actively defending the erosion of public rights, thus emboldening the government to remove more and more liberties. There should never be restrictions on facts, especially when it's governments or the judiciary doing the restricting.

She was holding a sign which started a fact of law. Do you not think that it's important that jurors are made aware of the law? Would you prefer that they made decisions in ignorance?

The UK government has introduced some very draconian laws limiting freedom to protest, and absolutely disproportionate sentencing for having the temerity to stand up against government and big business, so it is quite possible that if she falls foul of those laws in the UK in the future, she too could end up in jail for years for speaking the truth. Fears over right to protest after woman with sign at climate trial prosecuted Civil liberty campaigners have warned that the prosecution of a woman for holding up a placard about the rights of jurors outside a court is part of the government’s increasing attacks on the right to protest.

Wragg was previously revealed to be someone with unusual tastes when the Tory whips' notorious 'In Out' dossier, which listed all the MPs against whom they had compromising details, was leaked. If these scammers had more than what was previously revealed about him, it must have made for pretty grim reading.

I think you miss the point entirely. It's not about justifying their intent, it's about presenting facts to the public. If you are not interested in details but prefer to live within the narrative provided by the polemicals which reflect your own views then you will only get a very one sided perspective. Oh, who would have guessed it...

Yes I did read the article, which prompted my initial comment that the article only presented one side of the argument. You may not like what the other side has to say, but responsible journalism should present all perspectives. This just reads like an editorial.

A response from the organisers of the rally to the claims made about them in the article.

Sadly, Scotland remains part of the UK.