RuamRudy

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.

Time to put down the Sangsom Jonny mate, your just embarrassing yourself now.

I disagree. The way to guarantee equal representation is to ensure equal opportunities for all, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexuality. We have some way to go on that one, but maybe this new bill will help improve things.

To be honest, if you still don't get it, I guess either you don't want to or you can't quite grasp it. Either way, no skin off my nose. Indeed, that would be a nice change, and as I said, all things being equal...

As I have been at pains to point out, the 1 minute and 5 seconds of his speech is but an excerpt of it. The full speech has nuance and context but that has been ignored by those who want to validate their innate prejudices. Of course not - but all things being equal, there should naturally be a representative number of people from ethnic backgrounds across all areas of Scottish politics.

Then be bold and speak plainly. What is going on?

Maybe it's Tory Britain that's the problem here?

3 years of imprisonment or 10 hours of community service? Balance isn't really your thing, is it?

Yeah, but you know that's not correct - or at least if you were willing to actually educate yourself about his speech you would know (although I appreciate that you take comfort from your position of Daily Mail fed ignorance). You also know that even were his speech to have been racist, it would not be covered retrospectively by this bill (or is that something else you have failed to grasp) yet you still chose to waste the valuable time of police in another country by raising a vexatious issue for fits and giggles.