1 minute ago, mikeymike100 said:

You are missing  the point.....on purpose of course!!!!

No I’m not.

 

I’m sticking to the facts as they are.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No I’m not.

 

I’m sticking to the facts as they are.

Yes you are, I was answering a post from  DonniePeverley   about free speech in the US.

The point being the US does actually have free speech, as my answer to  DonniePeverley  explains!

4 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Yes you are, I was answering a post from  DonniePeverley   about free speech in the US.

The point being the US does actually have free speech, as my answer to  DonniePeverley  explains!

I agree, the U.S. does not have free speech and what it does have is being rapidly eroded.

 

 

On 8/22/2025 at 9:01 AM, sungod said:

 

So 2 tier kier (free gear Kier is quite catchy too) had nothing to do with steamrolling protesters through courts and locking them up last summer?

 

The Labour government had nothing to do with that? 

 

Well someone had to quickly piss on the increasingly violent and rapidly spreading, flaming contagion of Islamophobic hate and extreme right-wing violence being propagated by online entities such as Channel 3 Now, criminally toxic bigots like Yaxley-Lennon, and self-aggrandising tools like Farage. Even the misogynistic sex-trafficking rapist Tate stuck his oar in the water on X, just before his house arrest in Romania. Nice people, eh?

 

Anyway, Lucy is free now and eagerly gobbing away about how she was so hard done by while ignoring that it was her poor choices of words that got her banged up. Idiotically claiming that the words 'for all I care' on her inciteful post was all that was needed to exonerate her from being found guilty of being the vile, narrow-minded, hateful online harridan that she is. Apparently, she will be meeting with representatives from the White House today. Queue a photo-op with JD Vance, another opportunistic, s**t-stirring fool.

5 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Idiotically claiming that the words 'for all I care' on her inciteful post was all that was needed to exonerate her from being found guilty of being the vile, narrow-minded, hateful online harridan that she is.

Nothing could stop her being found guilty once she pleaded guilty.

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Nothing could stop her being found guilty once she pleaded guilty.

Correct, that was her downfall, but having being held in custody for such a long time and being told it would get her a 'lesser' sentence probably made her say that?

9 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

Well someone had to quickly piss on the increasingly violent and rapidly spreading, flaming contagion of Islamophobic hate and extreme right-wing violence being propagated by online entities such as Channel 3 Now, criminally toxic bigots like Yaxley-Lennon, and self-aggrandising tools like Farage. Even the misogynistic sex-trafficking rapist Tate stuck his oar in the water on X, just before his house arrest in Romania. Nice people, eh?

 

Anyway, Lucy is free now and eagerly gobbing away about how she was so hard done by while ignoring that it was her poor choices of words that got her banged up. Idiotically claiming that the words 'for all I care' on her inciteful post was all that was needed to exonerate her from being found guilty of being the vile, narrow-minded, hateful online harridan that she is. Apparently, she will be meeting with representatives from the White House today. Queue a photo-op with JD Vance, another opportunistic, s**t-stirring fool.

Hopefully the US, where there is free speech, take it all in and communicate to President Trump and JD, then they can admonish  Starmer, popcorn time!!!

8 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Correct, that was her downfall, but having being held in custody for such a long time and being told it would get her a 'lesser' sentence probably made her say that?

As I previously posted, my brief always said deny everything, and if they hold you insist on compensation. I got 7,000 pounds for false arrest after spending 3 nights in a police holding cell, the investigation cost the police over 120,000 pounds, plus retraining for 13 police staff.

 

Obviously I was innocent unlike Ms Connelly.

20 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And in contempt of court.

 

According to the 2 tier justice system. Let me guess you will refer us to the court records like a good little apologist Commie.

 

Just saw an interview with Lucy on Dan Wooton. What a lovely lady. Shame on the left for making her a political prisoner. 

 

Lets hope she sticks around and shames the pro censorship anti free speech leftists even more. 

 

It doesn't really matter at this point. Starmer and Labour are toast. 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Sorry, but that's an extremely flimsy argument. The spirit of Lucy Connolly's texts was very obviously not meant to convey her indifference to burning immigrants or hotels, but rather it is quite obvious that her message was meant to convey extreme  anger, disgust and that message would be interpreted as incitement by 99% of judges.

 

Her text was not meant to convey "ambivalence", it was very clear what she was saying. She also tweeted, commenting on a sword attack  "I bet my house it was one of these boat invaders.”  So there's really no question that her texts were incitement under the laws in the UK.

 

Otherwise she wouldn't have pled guilty of course. 

 

And by the way, I have successfully argued legal matters in the Senior Courts of England, so my English is vastly superior to yours.

 

So you are not only a legal expert, but you are also able to get into peoples minds and interpret the spirit, meaning and intention of an angry tweet someone made in the aftermath of the butchering of little girls.   I'm not sure Labour have gone as far as creating an actual thought police unit (yet), but perhaps you could give them a heads up that you are a good candidate for their pre-crime division.   

 

"I bet my house it was one of these boat invaders".  So what?  What's the crime here?  I'm not a mind expert like you but I would assume she didn't actually go down to William Hill and place that bet and even if she did, what is the crime?  Did your powerful mind wizardry think she actually did bet her house on this so perhaps an issue related to her mortgage and not being allowed to gamble on that?  

 

Anyway, she is a mother with a young child and not a career criminal.  She was denied bail (for a first offense, for a non violent offense which is beyond absurd especially with a young child and disabled husband to look after) and was told she would be remanded in custody until trial.   She was basically told to plead guilty as the fastest way to be reunited with her young daughter and disabled husband.   So even though she was innocent of what she pleaded guilty to, she pleaded guilty as she was told the punishment by process would be worse than the punishment for what she was pleading guilty to.   This constant wailing that she pleaded guilty is absurd as she just did what any mother would do to get back to her child as fast as possible, even if her thought crime was expressing ambivalence to something horrible happening.    

20 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Nothing could stop her being found guilty once she pleaded guilty.

 

She pled guilty because she was held on remand awaiting trial. Could have taken 12 months. She was promised a short sentence to plead guilty. Once she did that the trial was miraculously held in a couple of days and she got a lengthy sentence. 

 

A proper soviet style stitch up.

 

Ricky Jones on the other hand was out on bail so more than happy to wait for his trial (which was delayed multiple times) from the comfort of his echo chamber. Then not guilty. 

 

2 tier from start to finish. Not just the verdict. 

38 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree, the U.S. does not have free speech and what it does have is being rapidly eroded.

 

 

 

Yes. Eroded thanks to zealots like you. 

42 minutes ago, James105 said:

So you are not only a legal expert, but you are also able to get into peoples minds and interpret the spirit, meaning and intention of an angry tweet someone made in the aftermath of the butchering of little girls.

 

Just par for the course for a lawyer, if you had read De l'esprit des lois, ("The Spirit of the Law")  by Montesquieu, you would know that when interpreting laws and any text we look not just at the words but at the spirit of the laws and words, to see what they really convey.

 

And I'm afraid poor Lucy Connolly really had a temporary lapse of emotional control where she was inciting violence according to the laws of England, and I think if you look at the substance of her text AND the spirit of that text then there is absolutely no doubt what she was trying to say. Now, of course, I vastly sympathise in that her motivation was the killing of children and one may say her outburst was a normal human reaction, nevertheless, under the law there is no question at all that her outburst was incitement to violence and also incitement to racial hatred. None at all.

 

What's more the regrettable thing is that since incitement is one of these odious inchoate offences, the Crown didn't even need to prove that the burning of the hotels was directly caused by her words, something that I would personally require. But, alas, the laws are what they are.

 

Under the law of England, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of ss. 17–29 of the Public Order Act 1986, punishable by two years' imprisonment (now seven years). It was first established as a criminal offence in the Race Relations Act 1976.

 

This offence refers to:

 

deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group

distributing racist material to the public

making inflammatory public speeches

creating racist websites on the Internet

inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred

 

As you can see, therefore the words "I bet my house it was one of these boat invaders" when uttered in relation to a sword attack rather lend themselves to being interpreted as "deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group" and also "making inflammatory public speeches" and also "Inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group for the purpose of spreading racial discontent".

 

Now, was Lucy Connolly treated excessively harshly, given her circumstances, I would say personally yes she was. Was she innocent of what she pled guilty to, absoiutely f"£$"%ng not.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Where on earth did you pull that garbage from?

 

You’re losing it lad.

 

 

That's the problem with the far left like you, no sense of humour, one thing they cannot bare is a piss take

 

 

23 minutes ago, proton said:

 

That's the problem with the far left like you, no sense of humour, one thing they cannot bare is a piss take

 

 

The hypocrisy again! There is another thread on here about Gavin Newsom trolling Trump with his Tweets and the entire thread is right wingers getting their knickers in a twist about it.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

According to the 2 tier justice system. Let me guess you will refer us to the court records like a good little apologist Commie.

 

Just saw an interview with Lucy on Dan Wooton. What a lovely lady. Shame on the left for making her a political prisoner. 

 

Lets hope she sticks around and shames the pro censorship anti free speech leftists even more. 

 

It doesn't really matter at this point. Starmer and Labour are toast. 

 

Despite your many weekly offerings of being toast, no they're not.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Just par for the course for a lawyer, if you had read De l'esprit des lois, ("The Spirit of the Law")  by Montesquieu, you would know that when interpreting laws and any text we look not just at the words but at the spirit of the laws and words, to see what they really convey.

 

And I'm afraid poor Lucy Connolly really had a temporary lapse of emotional control where she was inciting violence according to the laws of England, and I think if you look at the substance of her text AND the spirit of that text then there is absolutely no doubt what she was trying to say. Now, of course, I vastly sympathise in that her motivation was the killing of children and one may say her outburst was a normal human reaction, nevertheless, under the law there is no question at all that her outburst was incitement to violence and also incitement to racial hatred. None at all.

 

What's more the regrettable thing is that since incitement is one of these odious inchoate offences, the Crown didn't even need to prove that the burning of the hotels was directly caused by her words, something that I would personally require. But, alas, the laws are what they are.

 

Under the law of England, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of ss. 17–29 of the Public Order Act 1986, punishable by two years' imprisonment (now seven years). It was first established as a criminal offence in the Race Relations Act 1976.

 

This offence refers to:

 

deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group

distributing racist material to the public

making inflammatory public speeches

creating racist websites on the Internet

inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred

 

As you can see, therefore the words "I bet my house it was one of these boat invaders" when uttered in relation to a sword attack rather lend themselves to being interpreted as "deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group" and also "making inflammatory public speeches" and also "Inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group for the purpose of spreading racial discontent".

 

Now, was Lucy Connolly treated excessively harshly, given her circumstances, I would say personally yes she was. Was she innocent of what she pled guilty to, absoiutely f"£$"%ng not.

Are immigrants a race, I think not.

And if not, how could she be charged with inciting racial hatred?

11 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Are immigrants a race, I think not.

And if not, how could she be charged with inciting racial hatred?

You perhaps need to read the IK law on the matter.

12 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Are immigrants a race, I think not.

And if not, how could she be charged with inciting racial hatred?

That is such a lame "argument", it really is. 

She hates the brown people and is happy for people to set fire to them, but because "immigrant" is not a race she isn't racist. Got it.

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Are immigrants a race, I think not.

 

Of course immigrants have a race. For instance Nigerians belong to the Niger-Congo ethnic cluster. The Chinese belong to the East-Asian ethnic cluste. Interestingly most Afghans also belong to the Iranian ethnic cluster.

 

Also note that whilst "race" is mentioned, it is not required, as the law also refers to "ethnic group", so Syrians, Afghans etc would all qualify under that anyway..

 

7 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

That is such a lame "argument", it really is. 

She hates the brown people and is happy for people to set fire to them, but because "immigrant" is not a race she isn't racist. Got it.

Lots of illegals are Albanians and Romanians ............ And they're white

As for lame arguements, court cases are won on technicalities.

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Of course immigrants have a race. For instance Nigerians belong to the Niger-Congo ethnic cluster. The Chinese belong to the East-Asian ethnic cluste. Interestingly most Afghans also belong to the Iranian ethnic cluster.

 

 

No, you are trying to twist word, unsuccessfully.

 

No, immigrants or asylum seekers are not a race like Chinese or Japanese. A race, as a social construct, refers to groups defined by perceived physical or ethnic traits, such as Chinese (associated with East Asian ancestry) or Japanese (tied to specific ethnic and national identity. They can be of any racial or ethnic background, such as African, Middle Eastern, Asian, or Caucasian.

1 minute ago, mikeymike100 said:

No, you are trying to twist word, unsuccessfully.

 

No, immigrants or asylum seekers are not a race like Chinese or Japanese. A race, as a social construct, refers to groups defined by perceived physical or ethnic traits, such as Chinese (associated with East Asian ancestry) or Japanese (tied to specific ethnic and national identity. They can be of any racial or ethnic background, such as African, Middle Eastern, Asian, or Caucasian.

 

Not really in the context of some of the quotes by Lucy Connolly, as she referred to a specific sword attack, which would have been committed by a specific person of a specific ethnic group and race.

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Lots of illegals are Albanians and Romanians ............ And they're white

 

You do realise that "white" is a 'race" right? Or rather, as we now call them an "ethnic cluster". So in the case of Albanians we would probably deep dive that into Roman era western Balkan populations, with additional admixture from Slavic-related groups. But I'd have to look up Cavalli-Sforza to be certain.

 

Of course this is largely academic, interesting as it is, since the Public Order Act 1986 was drafted by lawyers who foresaw this issue and thus used the following terminology:

 

The Public Order Act 1986 defines "racial hatred" as hatred against a group of people based on their colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins. 

 

So strictly speaking a full on ethnic cluster or race reference is not even necessary. Nationality or ethnic origin suffice.

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not really in the context of some of the quotes by Lucy Connolly, as she referred to a specific sword attack, which would have been committed by a specific person of a specific ethnic group and race.

 

Statistically that is a sound presumption though isn't it?  I don't recall sword attacks (or rape gangs etc) being all too common in the UK before the age of mass uncontrolled immigration, do you?  Why would expressing an opinion backed up by statistics lead to accusations of racism?  

 

I'm not sure who the person was that she was referring to in this alleged sword attack.   Was it a white British national who committed this sword attack then?  Were her presumptions completely baseless or did they have some merit?   

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You do realise that "white" is a 'race" right? Or rather, as we now call them an "ethnic cluster". So in the case of Albanians we would probably deep dive that into Roman era western Balkan populations, with additional admixture from Slavic-related groups. But I'd have to look up Cavalli-Sforza to be certain.

 

Of course this is largely academic, interesting as it is, since the Public Order Act 1986 was drafted by lawyers who foresaw this issue and thus used the following terminology:

 

The Public Order Act 1986 defines "racial hatred" as hatred against a group of people based on their colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins. 

 

So strictly speaking a full on ethnic cluster or race reference is not even necessary. Nationality or ethnic origin suffice.

I don't believe she spoke out about a particular ethnic group or nationality.

Which is what would be required for a legit conviction on inspiring racial hatred.

 

Sorry, you aren't bright enough to understand that.

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Statistically that is a sound presumption though isn't it?  I don't recall sword attacks (or rape gangs etc) being all too common in the UK before the age of mass uncontrolled immigration, do you?  Why would expressing an opinion backed up by statistics lead to accusations of racism?  

 

I'm not sure who the person was that she was referring to in this alleged sword attack.   Was it a white British national who committed this sword attack then?  Were her presumptions completely baseless or did they have some merit?   

 

Yes  it is, nevertheless, it was false in this instance. The attack that Lucy Connolly referred to was perpetrated by a UK national born in Wales, though admittedly, police did not help matters by not releasing the name of the defendant, though they insisted the arab sounding name reported by Channel 3 was false. It certainly adds to the poignant tragedy of Ms Connolly that her rage was ignited by a wholly FALSE report on Channel 3 which did claim that the assailant had an arab sounding name and was an immigrant. Which was not the case. Full details below.

 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/southport-stabbing-suspect-was-born-uk-say-police-2024-07-30/

 

Connolly's statement would be open to an interpretation  of incitement to racial hatred because the Public Order Act 1986 defines race in an extremely broad sense which includes nationality, so race is not even required. Since the assailant has a nationality, as do immigrants, no matter which way you turn it, Connolly's statements would be caught under the 1986 Public Order Act.

 

Which is a very typical strategy btw, the law defines things extremely broadly so that the state has discretion to prosecute or not.

 

Personally, I despise incitement laws and would abolish them in almost every instance, or water them down so cases like this don't even get prosecuted. Nobody was served by Lucy Connolly being in prison as long as she was.

11 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't believe she spoke out about a particular ethnic group or nationality.

Which is what would be required for a legit conviction on inspiring racial hatred.

 

Sorry, you aren't bright enough to understand that.

 

Actually you're completely wrong.

 

She spoke about the "boat invaders". The group of immigrants who arrive by boat in England are well known and also their national and ethnic make-up is well known.

 

So by inference, by referring to "boat invaders" it can easily be inferred that Lucy Connolly was referring to Afghans, Eritreans, Iranians, and Syrians, who make up most of the immmigrants arriving by boat in England currently. That's all that is required since the 1986 Public Order act merely requires "nationality"and clearly the boat "invaders" have a nationality.

 

I hope that clears it up for you.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

She spoke about the "boat invaders". The group of immigrants who arrive by boat in England are well known and also their national and ethnic make-up is well known.

Quite a lot of Romanians and Albanians in those boats.

 

12 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

22 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

That is such a lame "argument", it really is. 

She hates the brown people and is happy for people to set fire to them, but because "immigrant" is not a race she isn't racist. Got it.

Lots of illegals are Albanians and Romanians ............ And they're white

As for lame arguements, court cases are won on technicalities.

 

But Albanians and Romanians aren't English either are they? Lucy, Tommy, Nigel, Andrew and all those wrapping themselves up in the flag of St. George and crying about how the town they were born in is overrun with immigrants, aren't only upset about skin colour, it just makes their "job" easier. If you aren't English, or your name doesn't sound English, you are the same as an illegal arriving on a boat.