31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s lots of evidence of sullen grievance stoking.

 

I think those stoking grievance in the face of facts that are counter to the claims they make ought to come to terms with the reality.

 

Face, mirror interface required.

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

You know, this could be a really interesting debate if you weren't so dishonest. 

Says the guy who’s dreaming up my video watch list, and can’t even get his own imagined story straight on that.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   ^ He probably hasn't read it and will just agree with the Courts decision 

You asked my thoughts on the matter, which I provided.

 

Now you too participate in imagining views on my behalf.

 

6 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Face, mirror interface required.

I’m pleased to see you are developing some introspection.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m pleased to see you are developing some introspection.

 

You will be pleased to hear, that you are wrong - Again.

31 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I don't feel the least bit threatened. 

 

I see you, like Chomps, are avoiding my question. I will ask again.

 

Do you think this is incitement to violence?

 

Your continued attempts to derail this post are admirable Jonny and your defence of a racist by trying to use the comments of an anti-Nazi are telling. But since this is the cross you are willing to die on, I'll bite 

 

Ricky Jones was accused of encouraging violent disorder (contrary to section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007) with the comment he made. Unlike Lucy Connolly who pleaded guilty, he decided to fight this charge in court where a jury of his peers found him not guilty. The fact that this went as far as it did literally proves there is NOT a 2-tier system of justice in the UK. If there was, he wouldn't have been charged, he wouldn't have gone on trial and he wouldn't have had to be found not-guilty. He was charged, he did go to court and he was deemed not guilty. Your attempt to frame this as "Starmers 2-tier justice' therefore falls down at the very first hurdle. 

 

Now with this in mind, the only debate left is whether the jury themselves were correct as on the face of it, you could certainly see why the charges were brought. 'We need to cut all their throats...' certainly sounds like encouraging violent disorder but perhaps context is everything and again, jurors are less critical of someone saying these things to Nazi's. It might not be fair but that's what happens when you leave such a decision to 12 strangers.
 

You don't have to like the result but that's our legal system and in lieu of something better coming along, the only one we've got.

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yep.

 

Welcome back Lucy. 

 

Strange post but tells us everything we need to know about you Jonny. 

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.

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Strange post but tells us everything we need to know about you Jonny. 

 

What's strange is celebrating the incarceration of a young mother for a social media post.

 

Still, whatever makes you feel good about yourself... 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

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.

 Yes, the social media 'mob' on that sad day have a lot to answer for.

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

 

Shades of George Orwell.

 

 

She is not to go free AFTER OUTRAGE.......

 

UK sentencing rules require offenders to serve 40% of their sentence in custody before being released on licence ....and that is what she has served.....

 

A very misleading headline.

She should never have been jailed. There are actual criminals getting off with a slap on the wrist.

2 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

She should never have been jailed. There are actual criminals getting off with a slap on the wrist.

 

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.

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

She never actually incited anything. Inciting violence is a crime and rightly so but expressing an opinion and considering she had recently lost a child, prison was way over the top. A general telling off would have been the right thing to do.

Yet there was a council member indicting a violent action to people who are against Islam and he walks out of court free.

3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

We have free speech in the UK but not if it's likely to stir up racial hatred.

 

1 minute ago, Photoguy21 said:

She never actually incited anything. Inciting violence is a crime and rightly so but expressing an opinion and considering she had recently lost a child, prison was way over the top.

 

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.

 

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

No she said she didnt care if they were burnt dont. She never said burn them down.

3 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

No she said she didnt care if they were burnt dont. She never said burn them down.

 

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.

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

Incitement is an Inchoate offence, conviction does not require the incitement to result in the crime to which the incitement refers.

 

18 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

It isnt telling anyone to do anything but not showing regret if they did

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Incitement is an Inchoate offence, conviction does not require the incitement to result in the crime to which the incitement refers.

 

 

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.

 

15 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

It isnt telling anyone to do anything but not showing regret if they did

 

I think you'd have to have a very benevolent judge to see it like that.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

What's strange is celebrating the incarceration of a young mother for a social media post.

 

Still, whatever makes you feel good about yourself... 

Enough of the pearl clutching Jonny. I thought you lot were all about law and order or is it only when it benefits you?

17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

No you would see it as a judge who was being totally unbiased.

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

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

 

Shades of George Orwell.

What on earth are you prattling on about? People get jailed for social media posts all the time or is it just when it doesn't suit your agenda.

 

I assume then you would let this guy off https://www.fox7austin.com/news/san-antonio-man-faces-prison-time-threatening-president-trump-online?

 

Or this one https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/port-matilda-man-charged-threatening-then-president-elect-donald-j-trump

 

or this one https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/indiana-woman-charges-trump-threats

 

The hypocracy of you lot knows no bounds

 

1 hour ago, Photoguy21 said:

She never actually incited anything. Inciting violence is a crime and rightly so but expressing an opinion and considering she had recently lost a child, prison was way over the top. A general telling off would have been the right thing to do.

Yet there was a council member indicting a violent action to people who are against Islam and he walks out of court free.

One more time for the hard of comprehension, how is posting "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.” NOT inciting violence?

 

She obviously thought is was as she did plead guilty after all.

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

Enough of the pearl clutching Jonny. I thought you lot were all about law and order or is it only when it benefits you?

 

It needs to be applied equally.

 

If Lucy Connolly deserved a custodial sentence, then so did Ricky Jones. 

 

In fact I would argue his offense was worse, yet his case took 12 months to come to trial, during which time he was out on bail and then found not guilty. Lucy was arrested, charged, tried and sentenced within a week. 

 

The double standard is clear for all to see. It's money in the bank for Labour's opponents. A free hit. 

 

I see you're still refusing to answer whether you think Ricky Jones was actually inciting violence. 😃 I guess that would undermine your entire argument so you're refusing to answer like the other coward.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

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.

 

 

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

'Viewers watched live as fires were set outside a hotel housing 200 asylum seekers, with a mob chanting "burn it down" as bricks and bottles were hurled at windows and police officers.'   https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyj2nlw9wgo

 

Hard to say if it was HER words but it did happen.

27 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

There’s nothing odious about the incitement laws, there’s nothing fake about holding people responsible for their criminal actions.

 

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

'Viewers watched live as fires were set outside a hotel housing 200 asylum seekers, with a mob chanting "burn it down" as bricks and bottles were hurled at windows and police officers.'   https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyj2nlw9wgo

 

Hard to say if it was HER words but it did happen.

 

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.