Just now, brewsterbudgen said:

 

Just wanted to clarify the references to "Nazis" that was causing you some confusion.  Glad it's clear now.

 

There were no Nazis.

 

Only Jones incitement to violence. 

3 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

And committed contempt of court, which is why he was jailed.

Contempt worse than inciting someone to cut someones throat ?

1 minute ago, BarraMarra said:

Contempt worse than inciting someone to cut someones throat ?

 

Well, yes.  Contempt of court is crucial for upholding the authority, integrity, and independence of the judiciary, ensuring that justice is administered fairly, and that court orders are obeyed.  It's a very serious offence in the UK and rightly so.
 

If someone incited someone to cut someone's throat, and their throat was cut, that would be extremely serious.  But Ricky Jones didn't incite anyone, as determined in court.

55 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

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.

 

"Hard to say if it was HER words"

 

Quite the low bar for you then when it comes to taking away someones liberty.   I'm sure if it was your liberty at stake you would want that bar to be a bit higher, something like "beyond reasonable doubt" for instance.   

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

"Hard to say if it was HER words"

 

Quite the low bar for you then when it comes to taking away someones liberty.   I'm sure if it was your liberty at stake you would want that bar to be a bit higher, something like "beyond reasonable doubt" for instance.   

 

I'm inclined to agree.  If she had pleaded 'not guilty' there's a strong chance she would have been aquitted.

Also, it was the dreadful mob violence and rioting that was taking place at the time that made her offence so serious.  Had she gone to trial, the climate later would have been more helpful for her.

The biggest mistake Lucy made was pleading 'guilty' to a judge. If she had gone to jury, she would not have been found guilty at all; IMO.

 

As for Sir Kier Starmer. 

 

''The Prime Minister faced questions regarding Connolly's sentence, and whether it was a fair use of judicial resources. Sir Keir Starmer stood by the court's decision, stating that while the UK values free speech, incitement to violence cannot be tolerated."

 

Did he not say it was OK to cut off energy and water to civilians?

 

2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The biggest mistake Lucy made was pleading 'guilty' to a judge. If she had gone to jury, she would not have been found guilty at all; IMO.

 

As for Sir Kier Starmer. 

 

''The Prime Minister faced questions regarding Connolly's sentence, and whether it was a fair use of judicial resources. Sir Keir Starmer stood by the court's decision, stating that while the UK values free speech, incitement to violence cannot be tolerated."

 

Did he not say it was OK to cut off energy and water to civilians?

 

 

Did he?

23 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

"Hard to say if it was HER words"

 

Quite the low bar for you then when it comes to taking away someones liberty.   I'm sure if it was your liberty at stake you would want that bar to be a bit higher, something like "beyond reasonable doubt" for instance.   

She pleaded guilty. Case closed. 

16 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

  If she had pleaded 'not guilty' there's a strong chance she would have been aquitted.

 

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.

3 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

She pleaded guilty. Case closed. 

 

She was denied bail.   This is a mother of a 12 year old child on her first ever offense, a non violent offense at that, with a disabled husband.   Have you ever heard of someone like that being remanded in custody until trial for a non violent offense, who is clearly not a flight risk?  

 

Maybe this is the world you want to live in.   Maybe you like mothers of little girls with disabled husbands who don't share your world view being "banged up" for words.   Let's just hope the worm doesn't turn one day and you find yourself on the other side of this kind of persecution.

36 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

She pleaded guilty. Case closed. 

Should have got a rap over the knuckles. Community work. 100 hours cleaning at a migrant hotel.

5 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Should have got a rap over the knuckles. Community work. 100 hours cleaning at a migrant hotel.

 

For the white wife of a Tory councillor?

 

No chance. Bang her up. 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

I'm asking for your opinion.

 

Not the jury's.

 

What do you think Chomps? Do you have a mind of your own? 

I don’t have an opinion that contradicts that of the jury which saw the evidence, heard all the testimony, the prosecution case and the defense case.

 

Give it up Jonny.

 

He was acquitted.

 

Case closed.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

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

 

 

She pleaded guilty under oath.

 

I don’t think she included any caveats in her plea, if you have evidence she did, please provide it.

1 hour ago, BarraMarra said:

Contempt worse than inciting someone to cut someones throat ?

Contempt of court is a serious crime.

 

Nobody was found guilty of incitement to cut someone’s throat.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

But he is white and right wing. 

And in contempt of court.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

Connolly was not imprisoned for no reason, she pled guilty.

Further more she appealed her sentence and her sentence was upheld by her appeal.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

For all you who live outside the UK you can only rely on what you watch on the News and read in the press. If you live here you see the true side of whats happening to the locals news that is not allowed to be reported on. For instance Councils removing union flags being flown yet Palastinian flags allowed. A school in the South of England teaching under twelves, what Jihad is by putting up posters in the School. The true storys of two tier justice from Woke judges. Monsters like Rudakubana given all his privalidges back because he says he will behave now in Prison.

 

How about a jury seeing the evidence, hearing the testimonies, hearing the prosecution case, hearing the defense case?

 

 

Or are we going to disregard all of that on the basis of what some bloke who went to live in Isaan thinks?

 

She is a disgrace. 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

she pled guilty.

 

Come on, man, we all know why she pled guilty. Just for the reduced sentence.

 

She knew her text was recorded. Had she gone to trial it would have gotten a lot worse.

 

That's all.

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Come on, man, we all know why she pled guilty. Just for the reduced sentence.

 

She knew her text was recorded. Had she gone to trial it would have gotten a lot worse.

 

That's all.

So you admit the evidence against her was solid, she had no defense.

 

Why torture yourself with self stoked sullen grievance, just let it go.

 

She’s served her porridge, case closed.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Jonny misrepresents facts… again.

 

 

 

The fact is she was jailed for a 'racist' tweet- with no mention of race or nationality in it.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So you admit the evidence against her was solid, she had no defense.

 

 

I really don't think she did, because she called for those hotels to be burned down and her post was recorded. So pretty much a guaranteed incitement conviction. Which is why she pled guilty no doubt.

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

Judges don't decide guilt or innocence in the UK.  It would be down to a jury.

2 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

Judges don't decide guilt or innocence in the UK.  It would be down to a jury.

No, in the UK a defendant can opt for a jury or a bench trial. Since she opted for bench most likely she'd have opted for a bench trial if she'd gone to trial.

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No, in the UK a defendant can opt for a jury or a bench trial. Since she opted for bench most likely she'd have opted for a bench trial if she'd gone to trial.

 

I didn't know that, and a Google/AI search suggests otherwise, except for certain serious indictable-only offenses where jury tampering is a risk, as allowed under Section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.  Anyway, it's a moot point.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So you admit the evidence against her was solid, she had no defense.

 

Why torture yourself with self stoked sullen grievance, just let it go.

 

She’s served her porridge, case closed.

 

 

 

 

Watched the video yet Chomps? 

 

Calling for throats to be slashed still open to interpretation? 

 

You really have made yourself into a prize clown today!

 

 

7 hours ago, sungod said:

 

Watched the video yet Chomps? 

 

Calling for throats to be slashed still open to interpretation? 

 

You really have made yourself into a prize clown today!

 

 

Twelve Good Men and True, disagree.

 

Do try to come to terms with that reality.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Twelve Good Men and True, disagree.

 

Do try to come to terms with that reality.

Keep digging, you are nearly at the bottom. Not far to go!

Well it seems due to the short sighted nature of that idiot PM in his attempt to silence the likes of Lucy Connolly, he has now given her the loudest voice in the country.   The injustice of her absurd sentence for an angry tweet in the aftermath of 3 little girls being slaughtered will be seen all around the world, including the white house who have already expressed grave concerns about the (lack of) free speech in the UK.   She is all over the news now showing the world how far the UK has fallen.   

 

But, but, but... she pleaded guilty they shriek.   Yes well, mothers of children tend to do that (even if innocent) if told by their state sponsored legal advisor that this will be the fastest way to see her child again as the only alternative would be remanded in custody until a trial at least a year away.     

 

The optics of jailing a mother of a 12 year old girl for a words in a tweet, denying her bail for a first offense of any kind, a non violent one at that, and with a disabled husband she cares for is really quite something.   Especially when compared to others who pleaded guilty for actual crimes such as Huw Edwards who despite having 1000s of images of pedophilic nature on his computer merely get suspended sentences.