• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

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

Silly McSilly Face said:
Spot on. All her interviews with her said that she was told by her lawyers to plead guilty. She didn't (and still doesn't) believe she committed a crime (or at least she doesn't believe she did anything that SHOULD be considered a crime and she has a significant public opinion that sides with that view.....
Click to expand...
Didn't she say something like they could all burn for all I care.

I have said before that I couldn't care less if all arsenal fans drowned in their bath tubs. Could not care if half the posters on this website all choked on their cornflakes.

I'm not advocating for either thing by the way, I could not care if it happened. But I guess if Started reads this and goes on national news to put pressure through statements then maybe I after percussion from a poor solicitor might feel pressured into pleading.. Ah no I would n o t but then I'm a grumpy old sold that knows my own mind.

I wish to reiterate that I hope all of your digestive systems are in fine fettle and that no harm comes to any of you while eating breakfast or any other meal. Nor do i genuinely wish Arsenal fans to drown in the bath.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Didn't she say something like they could all burn for all I care.

I have said before that I couldn't care less if all arsenal fans drowned in their bath tubs. Could not care if half the posters on this website all choked on their cornflakes.

I'm not advocating for either thing by the way, I could not care if it happened. But I guess if Started reads this and goes on national news to put pressure through statements then maybe I after percussion from a poor solicitor might feel pressured into pleading.. Ah no I would n o t but then I'm a grumpy old sold that knows my own mind.

I wish to reiterate that I hope all of your digestive systems are in fine fettle and that no harm comes to any of you while eating breakfast or any other meal. Nor do i genuinely wish Arsenal fans to drown in the bath.
Click to expand...
So you don't want people to be offensive towards you but it's ok for you to be offensive about other posters. I guess it's ok because you are trying to be funny
 
Danishfurniturelover said:

Australia saying they have to get rid of free speech to protect multiculturalism.

Starting to catch up with us, those poor buggers.
Click to expand...
Getting your info from a UK paper about Australia can't possibly be wrong. Go & do some of your own research you clearly have no idea

Happy to say multiculturalism works in Australia

The federal & state governments are not going after your average Joe in the street. They are going after Neo Nazis & people that spread hate & division thats a good thing. we've already deported one back to South Africa & one to the UK more will follow.
 
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face said:
Spot on. All her interviews with her said that she was told by her lawyers to plead guilty. She didn't (and still doesn't) believe she committed a crime (or at least she doesn't believe she did anything that SHOULD be considered a crime and she has a significant public opinion that sides with that view.....
Click to expand...
'She' can think what she likes. It's irrelevant in a legal matter. BUT she has the opportunity (if strong minded enough) to plead 'not guilty'.
 
kb 1984 said:
So you don't want people to be offensive towards you but it's ok for you to be offensive about other posters. I guess it's ok because you are trying to be funny
Click to expand...
Well I don't think it would be offensive if I were to say I couldn't care less if half the posters on this board choked on their cornflakes.

If I were to say "I hope that half the posters on this board choked on their cornflakes" Then that would be offensive and inappropriate because I would be hoping for a negative outcome rather then merely stating I couldn't care less if the were a negative outcome. Big difference between wanting and not caring if something happens.

Was not trying to be funny but pointing out the difference in language. But if English is not your first language I appreciate the nuances of it are lost on you.
 
Sounds a bit like Martin Jol, can think what we like but can't say it in certain circumstances

"I went up to the referee at the end and said, 'In England, can I tell you that you're a prick?' He said, 'Of course not. You can't say that'. So I said, 'Can I think you're a prick?' He said, 'You can think whatever you like.' So I said, 'Ok, I think you're a prick.'"
 
kb 1984 said:
Getting your info from a UK paper about Australia can't possibly be wrong. Go & do some of your own research you clearly have no idea

Happy to say multiculturalism works in Australia

The federal & state governments are not going after your average Joe in the street. They are going after Neo Nazis & people that spread hate & division thats a good thing. we've already deported one back to South Africa & one to the UK more will follow.
Click to expand...
We're you the chap who told me after the attack that it was not racially motivated? The attack on a Jewish holiday.


Newspapers from all over the world Report on issues from all over the world. So we should only trust the news from publications in host countries despite the fact distance can offer a different perspective.

You do realise that some of us will know people from Australia will be friends with them, the are quite a few living over in the UK. The ones I speak to share a different opinion to you, have shown me videos of protests in Australia before the bondi attack.

Think it's lovely you think it's working out, I know others who don't share your opinion.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
'She' can think what she likes. It's irrelevant in a legal matter. BUT she has the opportunity (if strong minded enough) to plead 'not guilty'.
Click to expand...
She said she was advised to plead guilty on the basis that a custodial sentence was extremely unlikely based on current sentencing guidelines and case precedent. The judge decided to make "an example" of her hence the subsequent belief that she was used as a political pawn and that her case became politicised (which it clearly has done). Her case is highly divisive and cuts down the political spectrum between those that believe she was f*cked over by an increasingly oppressive state and those that felt like she had it coming. There is increasing anger, bitterness and divisiveness in our politics, legal systems and institutions. Social cohesion is cracking and nobody really seems able to do anything about it.
 
Her own lawyers felt that her wording showed an intent to stir up racial hatred and they didn't have a case against the prosecution. They were worried that also, given how far the tweet has spread, views/shares etc that there was high culpability, in that there was an intention to incite serious violence and that her message also directly encouraged activity

Maybe don't call for burning down of hotels with people inside and you won't get sent to jail. Funny enough I and many others on here haven't OR had our freedom of speech impacted either.

You do wonder what some people are itching to say that they feel their freedom of speech would be impacted should they dare say it, I can take a guess I reckon
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
She said she was advised to plead guilty on the basis that a custodial sentence was extremely unlikely based on current sentencing guidelines and case precedent. The judge decided to make "an example" of her hence the subsequent belief that she was used as a political pawn and that her case became politicised (which it clearly has done). Her case is highly divisive and cuts down the political spectrum between those that believe she was f*cked over by an increasingly oppressive state and those that felt like she had it coming. There is increasing anger, bitterness and divisiveness in our politics, legal systems and institutions. Social cohesion is cracking and nobody really seems able to do anything about it.
Click to expand...
No, the offence to which she pled guilty had a starting sentence of 3 years imprisonment, with aggravating and mitigating factors then taken into account.
The judge's sentencing remarks explain it very clearly :
 
Last edited:
Glenda's Legs said:
No, the offence to which she pled guilty had a starting sentence of 3 years imprisonment, with aggravating and mitigating factors then taken into account.
The judge's sentencing remarks explain it very clearly :
Click to expand...
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.
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
Her own lawyers felt that her wording showed an intent to stir up racial hatred and they didn't have a case against the prosecution. They were worried that also, given how far the tweet has spread, views/shares etc that there was high culpability, in that there was an intention to incite serious violence and that her message also directly encouraged activity

Maybe don't call for burning down of hotels with people inside and you won't get sent to jail. Funny enough I and many others on here haven't OR had our freedom of speech impacted either.

You do wonder what some people are itching to say that they feel their freedom of speech would be impacted should they dare say it, I can take a guess I reckon
Click to expand...
your dont know what her own lawyers thought, its legally privileged information. She herself has said she was advised she would not get the sentence she was handed otherwise she would not have pled guilty
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
your dont know what her own lawyers thought, its legally privileged information. She herself has said she was advised she would not get the sentence she was handed otherwise she would not have pled guilty
Click to expand...

Taking her words as gospel, you are really taking a leap of faith to defend the stupid cnut.
 
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face said:
. There is increasing anger, bitterness and divisiveness in our politics, legal systems and institutions. Social cohesion is cracking and nobody really seems able to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

nothing to do with the prevalent economic system? Anyone who wants to do something about that to address the issues cracking social cohesion gets labelled a communist or a student whack job.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back