Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Silly McSilly Face]

Taking her words as gospel, you are really taking a leap of faith to defend the stupid cnut.

Not sure i'm taking her words as gospel, i am merely pointing out what she said. Describing her in such degrading and emotive language simply goes to the feeling that she was mostly tried in the court of public opinion and emotion and that her case was not an impartial fair prosexution but a divisive case where 50% are the braying lynch mob saying she deserved everything she gets and the other 50% are aghast at the fact that someone can be locked up for frankly displaying their thoughts and emotions.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

What an amazing addition to this lump of brick country we now live in

Being reported he is on his way to Brighton where he has family. No surprise a man who says he hates whites is in Brighton because this place is full of them.

Mainly all the far left white ones that saying it.
Also report here locally of a girl being read on the 21st December of a woman being raped, photo fit released. The address it happened was one road behind an asylum hotel, but I would not want to jump to any conclusions and we will await the results of the no doubt exhaustive police investigation before we can come to any conclusions.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Not sure i'm taking her words as gospel, i am merely pointing out what she said. Describing her in such degrading and emotive language simply goes to the feeling that she was mostly tried in the court of public opinion and emotion and that her case was not an impartial fair prosexution but a divisive case where 50% are the braying lynch mob saying she deserved everything she gets and the other 50% are aghast at the fact that someone can be locked up for frankly displaying their thoughts and emotions.

Well she wasn't she was judged in the court of law

I am able to call her a horrible thick cnut after the fact because that is what she is.

Its likely you are going so far to defend her because she was horrible towards those that you have been so vocal to question and be afraid of yourself, its fairly clear to me thats your motivation here TBH

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

"But the problem with this personal mitigation was, in the appeal court’s view, that it was hard to connect with the text of the tweet sent. As the appeal judgment states “she did not post a message of support and sympathy to the victims of the Southport attack and the bereaved. Nor, we would add, did she post a message of hostility confined to the perpetrator of the Southport attack. She chose instead to incite serious violence against large numbers of persons. The applicant’s personal history cannot significantly reduce her culpability for that serious offence.”

Seems fair

I don't think it does. I think that it is a frankly ludicrous argument and decision to consider the argument that she may have lost partial control emotionally by trying to compare words and actions literally and decide what words and actions would have reasonably occurred if you had lost a child and then read/watched coverage of other young children being murdered.....totally ridiculous.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

Well she wasn't she was judged in the court of law

I am able to call her a horrible thick cnut after the fact because that is what she is.

Its likely you are going so far to defend her because she was horrible towards those that you have been so vocal to question and be afraid of yourself, its fairly clear to me thats your motivation here TBH

Your posts just go to my general point.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I don't think it does. I think that it is a frankly ludicrous argument and decision to consider the argument that she may have lost partial control emotionally by trying to compare words and actions literally and decide what words and actions would have reasonably occurred if you had lost a child and then read/watched coverage of other young children being murdered.....totally ridiculous.

Lose child become racist..............righto

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

Lose child become racist..............righto

View attachment 21088

term "racist" and "inflammatory" have become highly subjective these days and are frankly being hung on "opinions i disagree with" and there is an increasing feeling amongst growing section of society that these terms are used to silence/police thought and free speech. This case as i have said is symbolic of an increasing divide and dare i say battle in this space and when a law and case is so divisive it isn't indicative of good law passed and enforced by a democratic country.

I fear we are going down the same route as some other countries. Look at France. They've become so divided they are practically ungovernable as politically they're now split almost equally between right, centrist and left and coalitions formed to try and keep the right out keep collapsing.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

term "racist" and "inflammatory" have become highly subjective these days and are frankly being hung on "opinions i disagree with" and there is an increasing feeling amongst growing section of society that these terms are used to silence/police thought and free speech. This case as i have said is symbolic of an increasing divide and dare i say battle.

I think most people with a fair degree of sanity can disagree with a call to burn down hotels with people in them.....................its a wild claim to say its anything to do with being hung up on a difference of opinion.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

No. The judge decided it was a category A case. That was their decision. The starting point for sentencing for the offence is not even a prison term. The judge determined that it was the most serious example of the offence and added further aggravating factors to it and while considering mitigating factors such as good character and loss of her own young child the judge determined there was no evidence as put forward by her defence hat her own loss resulted in a more emotional response to the Southport attacks than others.

A judgement with which her counsel agreed, as per the comments.

Anyway I said this had already been done to death and I’m guilty for prolonging the discussion again, so I’ll bow out now and go and do something better with my time (although as that involves watching Spurs play, whether that’s a better use of time is debatable these days).

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

I think most people with a fair degree of sanity can disagree with a call to burn down hotels with people in them.....................its a wild claim to say its anything to do with being hung up on a difference of opinion.

the question is not about the words. On q technical analysis of literal language i do not believe she "called" for that to happen but expressed that she would not care if it happened. So a degree of interpretation has to be overlaid over the intent and hence why many are also disquietened by the state locking people up for expressing opinion. I've said the same about the designation of palestine action as a terrorist organisation. It increasingly feels like we are being governed by the thought police and thoughts and words are increasingly getting people locked up and people are increasingly feeling an anger and disconnect from the state and its institutions in all parts of the political spectrum.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

A judgement with which her counsel agreed, as per the comments.

Anyway I said this had already been done to death and I’m guilty for prolonging the discussion again, so I’ll bow out now and go and do something better with my time (although as that involves watching Spurs play, whether that’s a better use of time is debatable these days).

Her counsel is not her legal advisors btw. Refers to kings counsel (i.e. an in court representative appointed by the state)

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

Just a point on counsels. Part of a reason i couldn't do with our criminal justice system any more. Very last case i was involved in, trying to take down a major OCG supplying cocaine and weapons into the UK and part of the disruption operation was to seize assets and disrupt their money laundering operation by taking out their "mules" in the UK. One of the cases i was handling personally as OIC i got charges authorised for 2 money laundering offences involving over £300K of unexplained wealth in a single year and x2 counts of fraud in respect of statements made to mortgage companies in respect of income and source of funds to purchase property.

CPS complex case unit felt we had nailed on case.

First day of trial we got an offer to plead to the fraud if we dropped the POCA charges i would have taken it as would have taken the mule out of the financial sector in terms of access and we could have pursued confiscation of the properties but our counsel had already rejected the plea without consultation. Then they had a case conference with other side and judge and decided to offer no evidence without consultation again and the guy f*cking walked away free as a bird.

These barristers represent both prosecution and defence and they're appointed by chambers and they all know each other and the judges....all these non-jury case decided by secret conferences within the jolly old boys/girls club and half of them are an arrogant and detached law unto themselves. Its all a big f*cking pantomime to them with their wigs and stupid prose from the 1700s.

The whole system.is utterly broken.

And yeah this is a system that you may think is "fair" until your lawyers (who you have a say in choosing) tell you to plead guilty as you'll unlikely get a custodial sentence and then your KC that you've had no say in the appointment over goes in to have a discussion with their mates and goes "yeah she's a racist scumbag throw the book at her i'm offering no arguments"

 

[scaramanga]

I think people should be free to think whatever they want, after all you can’t actually police thought. There’s a wider question here about some people’s thoughts actually leading to metal health issues but let’s swerve that for now.

However when it comes to saying it in a public forum, I think there’s lines that need drawing. This is why the misinformation thing is so important. People go along with and act on what others say, no matter who’s responsibility that then becomes is another matter but I absolutely do not believe you should be able to preach whatever you want and avoid responsibility. If I start going about saying all people who are left handed and called Steve should be killed, most would laugh it off, but I absolutely guarantee someone would act on it if my comment gained enough traction.

There’s “free” speech and there’s hate speech. I’m sorry I don’t see how you should be just allowed to say whatever you want no matter how harmful to someone and we all just shrug and say “meh, free speech”. This forum alone has threads where you can see how certain people are at risk of being targeted due to the way they think and feel and react, people are very easily suckered in be it their own fault or not.

There's an obvious problem with allowing any government if any colour to be the arbiter of what we can and cannot think.

It would be worringly easy for our current government and their pet judiciary to outlaw opinions such as high taxation being an obvious drag of the economy, or that endless public spending is dangerous and will be damaging in the long term.

If that seems ridiculous, just look at the frankly terrifying blasphemy laws that some nutjobs Islamists want to pass. Some of those nutjobs are in the Labour party and large swathes of the looney left fringe of the party support them. Currently Starmer appears to be opposed, but we all know what happens to his principles every time his party's polling numbers have a wobble.

 

[Rafa87]

There's an obvious problem with allowing any government if any colour to be the arbiter of what we can and cannot think.

It would be worringly easy for our current government and their pet judiciary to outlaw opinions such as high taxation being an obvious drag of the economy, or that endless public spending is dangerous and will be damaging in the long term.

If that seems ridiculous, just look at the frankly terrifying blasphemy laws that some nutjobs Islamists want to pass. Some of those nutjobs are in the Labour party and large swathes of the looney left fringe of the party support them. Currently Starmer appears to be opposed, but we all know what happens to his principles every time his party's polling numbers have a wobble.

I think I’m mostly with you, just to a point I guess.

I completely agree that views around issues such as high taxation shouldn’t be policed in any way. Anyone should be allowed to hold and speak about those points of view.

I think for me and it is just my own feelings, yesterday you mentioned people may have views that most would find abhorrent, I just feel if that’s the case, should they be allowed to think it? Absolutely, after all how could it be stopped? But I think if the majority of people find you writing it online to be abhorrent and potentially as incitement to do something then I feel there’s definitely a greater cause for policing there that outweighs (for me) that individuals rights to free speech.

 

[Gutter Boy]

There's an obvious problem with allowing any government if any colour to be the arbiter of what we can and cannot think.

It would be worringly easy for our current government and their pet judiciary to outlaw opinions such as high taxation being an obvious drag of the economy, or that endless public spending is dangerous and will be damaging in the long term.

If that seems ridiculous, just look at the frankly terrifying blasphemy laws that some nutjobs Islamists want to pass. Some of those nutjobs are in the Labour party and large swathes of the looney left fringe of the party support them. Currently Starmer appears to be opposed, but we all know what happens to his principles every time his party's polling numbers have a wobble.

"Anti-capitalist views" is already listed as something to report as radicalisation in Theresa May's Prevent programme

 

[scaramanga]

I think I’m mostly with you, just to a point I guess.

I completely agree that views around issues such as high taxation shouldn’t be policed in any way. Anyone should be allowed to hold and speak about those points of view.

I think for me and it is just my own feelings, yesterday you mentioned people may have views that most would find abhorrent, I just feel if that’s the case, should they be allowed to think it? Absolutely, after all how could it be stopped? But I think if the majority of people find you writing it online to be abhorrent and potentially as incitement to do something then I feel there’s definitely a greater cause for policing there that outweighs (for me) that individuals rights to free speech.

It's far more important that we defend the opinions that disgust us than those we agree with.

The case we've been discussing is a perfect example of that. It's impossible to defend her opinion, nobody in their right mind could or should. But we should all be defending her right to think and say it.

 

[scaramanga]

"Anti-capitalist views" is already listed as something to report as radicalisation in Theresa May's Prevent programme

There's a huge difference between an opinion being a marker that warrants a closer look in terms of extremism and something being illegal.

For example. You can't arrest someone for being a catholic priest, but you can sure as fudge choose not to leave your kids alone with one.