Cameroni

The odd couple and Rocky Because I watched it on the couch with my beloved Mama, and the other, well, it's boxers.

Hollywood or Bust and Kid Galahad Because gamblers and boxers are cool.

Perhaps you need to have a look what happened. in 2008 NATO said it would admit Ukraine as a member. The only reason it has not is because Putin has taken out the axe. If he hadn't done that, Ukraine would now be a member of NATO.

The 2008 Bucharest NATO summit. That was when NATO disclosed that they would allow Ukraine to become a NATO member. Putin forcefully argued against that, but was ignored. At that point it became clear to Russia, that all the American, German and NATO promises that NATO would not expand eastwards were not worth the paper they were written on.

I don't think so. In these cases judges don't care if actual harm resulted directly from the words, they don't look at causation. They would have looked at her words and she would have gone down for incitement. Which is why she pleaded guilty of course.

The Karate Kid and Fight Club. I learned Karate and hate Ikea.

He chose to invade AFTER he had for YEARS set up a red line and clearly stated that making Ukraine a NATO member is beyond the red line. He wasn't listened to. That's when he chose to invade.

That about sums it up. Zelensky will no doubt move to a condo in Israel.

His whole premise is a nonsense because Trump will not fire Powell. He wants to but he can't, as the market would not like it. Moreover, given the amounts needed to visit Luan Prabang, it's not clear how much difference it would make anyway. If he were thinking about making a 3 million USD trade on the currency pair, okay, but a holiday in Luan Prabang?

Only because she'd receive a lesser sentence. Not because she admitted her texts directly caused public safety issues.

With POTUS it would make sense that exceptional rules apply, given the greater likelihood of assassination for political reasons. But a situation like the one with Lucy Connolly is different. This was just a woman mouthing off, she was not a threat to national security or public safety. As you conceded yourself, none of the offences can be directly attributed to her words. None of the perpetrators said they did what they did because of her texts. So her texts did not cause any public order offence, nor were they an issue of national security. By your interpretation you'd basically be free to imprison anyone who ever said anything controversial because there "might" be public safety issues, but that's wrong. That should only happen if there is a clear intent, and a very clear path to an actual offence about to be committed. Even if you miss a few offences, that are real, this is preferable to imprisoning people for no reason.

We both know that guilty pleas are tactical and do not necessarily mean anything other than the accused trying to reduce his or her sentence. The question with Lucy Connolly rather is did she really criminally intend for hotels to be burned down, herself, or by others, or was she just shooting off her mouth. it seems the latter really in this instance. Nor can you prove a causal link between any of the arson being traceable to being caused by her social media texts.

No, but it's a stupid comment. Obviously the same rules would apply, if no harm was done, if the author of the social media texts was not really on the path to commit a clear crime , and was effectively just shooting off his mouth, like Lucy Connolly was, then the texts should be ignored. If, however, it is a case of a clear criminal about to undertake a real criminal offence, then of course sanctions should apply. It's not rocket science.

The point is that the inchoate offences are meant for preventing harm, ie situations where REAL criminal intent and criminal harm would result, because the perpetrator was on a clear path to commit a crime. However, with most incitement laws, that's usually not the case. That's why they are "fake" inchoate offences. Nothing is actually prevented.

Well, you prattle on and then, like a dumbbell you prove the point for me....indeed it is IMPOSSIBLE to say that it was Lucy Connolly's words that caused the crimes you refer to. Establish the causal link, if you can. But of course you can't.

Why would they have been conquered? Nobody set out to convquer all of Ukraine. They have lost control of great swathes of territory though.

Yes, indeed, but that is precisely what makes incitement laws so odious. They basically give free reign to the state to incarcerate people where no harm was committed. And we both know that these laws are used by European states routinely to imprison political opponements. Horst Mahler famously spent 12 years in jail in Germany for incitement, his life was ruined. Inchoate offences, such as conspiracy, attempt, solicitation, these normally carry a very clear criminal intent, ie that person was seriously on the path to committing the actual crime. When we look at texts like Lucy Connolly's this is an irate, emotional angry woman, but did she really have clear criminal intent to go and burn down hotels, or was she really clearly planning for others to do it? Obviously not. This is where "incitement laws" fall down. They are the "fake" inchoate offence. I think you'd have to have a very benevolent judge to see it like that.

The NHS provides access to professional help for PTSD issues. You'd have to be a moron to think that qulifies you for a massive payout under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

That's utterly shocking. A death rate of 83% for civilians is clear evidence of genocide. Netanyahu should be arrested and brought to the Netherlands as the criminal he is.

I see what you're saying, it wasn't a command statement, more a "if you did" statement...interesting. Let's have a look. "“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the <deleted> hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it” https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Connollysentence.pdf I have to say that veers more into incitement territory, in my view, but again, the question would be if her text actually caused any harm.

I thought she did incite violence, as she called for hostels to be burned down " "set fire to all the... hotels [housing asylum seekers]... for all I care". https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3nn60wyr6o However, even if she did incite to violence, was violence actually committed because of her words? Only if this causal link could be firmly established did her incitement actually cause harm, and should then have been subject to some kind of sanction. Imprisonment certainly seems massively over the top where no harm resulted.

On policy alone it's highly undesirable to jail people for posts on social media. The jails would be overcrowded in a matter of months. The "incitement" laws have never been convincing though, they only really make sense when actual harm was done. However, they are used in reality to slience political opponents in Europe. England is not the only place that suffers in this way. Trump, as always, was right to call out this misuse of incitement laws.

To jail someone for a social media post is absolutely unacceptable, unless real harm was done. Shades of George Orwell.

Poor Lucy Connolly just lost her emotional control temporarily. She'd read the false story that an immigrant was responsible for the murder of 3 girls and in a fit of gender solidarity she lost her mind temporarily calling for hostels to be burned down and immigrants to be burned alive. Just poor emotional control. We see it on these boards every day. Could happen to anyone.

No the woman caused the fight, as she entertained both men at the same time.