Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
General Things That Annoy You thread - part 2
Comments
-
What is indefensible though is Lucy Connelly being denied bailed twice, whilst Ricky Jones has been free all this time.
0 -
It really annoys me when someone pleads guilty and gets dealt with really quickly and when someone pleads not guilty gets to walk away.
I’ve always had the opinion that if you have got as far as a court, you must have done something.0 -
My understanding is that as she had been a campaigner on that particular issue for a long time including supporting various Stephen Yaxley Lennon campaigns and across various social media platforms, therefore she was considered likely to post or campaign on those same lines again and push the line of the law again. She was also considering a risk of interfering with the investigations through her posts on social media.cafcnick1992 said:What is indefensible though is Lucy Connelly being denied bailed twice, whilst Ricky Jones has been free all this time.
Ricky Jones at least seems to have been a one off spout rather than a continued campaign.3 -
She had a young child. Whether or not she supported Tommy Robinson is irrelevant.0
-
Wageing a continued campaign of hate is quite relevant.cafcnick1992 said:She had a young child. Whether or not she supported Tommy Robinson is irrelevant.3 -
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.cantersaddick said:To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.It’s not the same thing to compare.2 -
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?valleynick66 said:
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.cantersaddick said:To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.It’s not the same thing to compare.0 -
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.cantersaddick said:
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?valleynick66 said:
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.cantersaddick said:To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.It’s not the same thing to compare.I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).0 -
She told people to burn down hotels, that's pretty inflammatory.cafcnick1992 said:She had a young child. Whether or not she supported Tommy Robinson is irrelevant.2 -
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.valleynick66 said:
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.cantersaddick said:
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?valleynick66 said:
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.cantersaddick said:To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.It’s not the same thing to compare.I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.2 - Sponsored links:
-
I don’t know the circumstance of the nazi salutes you talk about but to do so is not in itself illegal.cantersaddick said:
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.valleynick66 said:
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.cantersaddick said:
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?valleynick66 said:
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.cantersaddick said:To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.It’s not the same thing to compare.I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.
700 people were not arrested for holding signs protesting genocide.
You seem to have taken a contrary position to the letter of the law in both examples.
for the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending scum who do Nazi salutes.2 -
We are likely agreeing.cantersaddick said:
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.valleynick66 said:
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.cantersaddick said:
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?valleynick66 said:
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.cantersaddick said:To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.It’s not the same thing to compare.I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.My point stands the Palestine group knew in advance and wanted to be arrested. That’s a unique scenario.0 -
Yes I'm not quibbling the legality of what they were doing. The point was simply to demonstrate that the concept of politically motivated two tier justice is just ridiculous. The law is applied as the law no matter which side breaks it.valleynick66 said:
We are likely agreeing.cantersaddick said:
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.valleynick66 said:
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.cantersaddick said:
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?valleynick66 said:
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.cantersaddick said:To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.It’s not the same thing to compare.I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.My point stands the Palestine group knew in advance and wanted to be arrested. That’s a unique scenario.4 -
No you seem to have missed my point and therefore demonstrated it. That the law is applied in that way in those cases shows that the claim of politically motivated two tier justice doesn't actually exist.SporadicAddick said:
I don’t know the circumstance of the nazi salutes you talk about but to do so is not in itself illegal.cantersaddick said:
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.valleynick66 said:
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.cantersaddick said:
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?valleynick66 said:
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.cantersaddick said:To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.It’s not the same thing to compare.I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.
700 people were not arrested for holding signs protesting genocide.
You seem to have taken a contrary position to the letter of the law in both examples.
for the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending scum who do Nazi salutes.1 -
She had enough self-reflection to delete the post hours later, and she was a mother to a child. She was not a danger to society.ME14addick said:
She told people to burn down hotels, that's pretty inflammatory.cafcnick1992 said:She had a young child. Whether or not she supported Tommy Robinson is irrelevant.
Denying her bail was cruel.1 -
Not before thousands had seen her post. Suggesting that hotels are burnt down, is a danger to the public. She should have thought about her children before she made inflammatory comments, inciting others to act illegally.cafcnick1992 said:
She had enough self-reflection to delete the post hours later, and she was a mother to a child. She was not a danger to society.ME14addick said:
She told people to burn down hotels, that's pretty inflammatory.cafcnick1992 said:She had a young child. Whether or not she supported Tommy Robinson is irrelevant.
Denying her bail was cruel.3 -
People that can't resist turning every thread into a political discussion.10
-
That's all well and good, but you can't articulate why Ricky got offered bail and Lucy didn't.ME14addick said:
Not before thousands had seen her post. Suggesting that hotels are burnt down, is a danger to the public. She should have thought about her children before she made inflammatory comments, inciting others to act illegally.cafcnick1992 said:
She had enough self-reflection to delete the post hours later, and she was a mother to a child. She was not a danger to society.ME14addick said:
She told people to burn down hotels, that's pretty inflammatory.cafcnick1992 said:She had a young child. Whether or not she supported Tommy Robinson is irrelevant.
Denying her bail was cruel.0 -
Lucy Connolly made a comment likely to incite her followers at a time when there were riots taking place. Riots that were caused by misinformation. Her comments, in real time, were likely to make a dangerous situation even worse.cafcnick1992 said:
That's all well and good, but you can't articulate why Ricky got offered bail and Lucy didn't.ME14addick said:
Not before thousands had seen her post. Suggesting that hotels are burnt down, is a danger to the public. She should have thought about her children before she made inflammatory comments, inciting others to act illegally.cafcnick1992 said:
She had enough self-reflection to delete the post hours later, and she was a mother to a child. She was not a danger to society.ME14addick said:
She told people to burn down hotels, that's pretty inflammatory.cafcnick1992 said:She had a young child. Whether or not she supported Tommy Robinson is irrelevant.
Denying her bail was cruel.
Ricky Jones was talking at an anti racism rally and was referring to something that had happened in the past, the placing of stickers on trains by National Front members. The stickers covering up razor blades, an action designed to hurt anyone who tried to remove them.
I don't condone either comments, but Lucy's comments fanned the flames of a very volatile situation.0 -
3 - Sponsored links:
-
So, no point in having trials at all if everyone who is charged is guilty.charltonkeston said:It really annoys me when someone pleads guilty and gets dealt with really quickly and when someone pleads not guilty gets to walk away.
I’ve always had the opinion that if you have got as far as a court, you must have done something.
You have solved the court backlog in one fell swoop, Kesters... 🤣3 -
I don't think I missed your point at all - what I'm saying is that you used examples of the "far left" (my terminology) being arrested and the "far right" (my terminology) not being arrested to illustrate the absence of two tier policing. It simply demonstrated that you will be arrested for breaking the law.cantersaddick said:
No you seem to have missed my point and therefore demonstrated it. That the law is applied in that way in those cases shows that the claim of politically motivated two tier justice doesn't actually exist.SporadicAddick said:
I don’t know the circumstance of the nazi salutes you talk about but to do so is not in itself illegal.cantersaddick said:
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.valleynick66 said:
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.cantersaddick said:
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?valleynick66 said:
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.cantersaddick said:To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.It’s not the same thing to compare.I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.
700 people were not arrested for holding signs protesting genocide.
You seem to have taken a contrary position to the letter of the law in both examples.
for the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending scum who do Nazi salutes.
0 -
And precisely the same with Lucy Conelly. She broke the law and did time for it. That's literally the point. It's not two tier.SporadicAddick said:
I don't think I missed your point at all - what I'm saying is that you used examples of the "far left" (my terminology) being arrested and the "far right" (my terminology) not being arrested to illustrate the absence of two tier policing. It simply demonstrated that you will be arrested for breaking the law.cantersaddick said:
No you seem to have missed my point and therefore demonstrated it. That the law is applied in that way in those cases shows that the claim of politically motivated two tier justice doesn't actually exist.SporadicAddick said:
I don’t know the circumstance of the nazi salutes you talk about but to do so is not in itself illegal.cantersaddick said:
Lucy and Bob Vylan were charged with the same thing. My point was the difference in outcomes was clearly because of the section of legislation that refers to the likelihood of the audience to come in contact with the target. So yes it is a relevant comparison.valleynick66 said:
Comparing to Lucy what’s her name and Bob Vylan I meant.cantersaddick said:
So do you think iys more deserving of arrest than doing a Nazi salute?valleynick66 said:
But that’s not what they were arrested for. Rather the rest of the wording on their signs.cantersaddick said:To be fair I don't think he had much of a defence in this instance. He clearly said an idiotic thing and it was very possible someone in the crowd could meet someone he was referring to and take action based on what he said. The likelihood of an audience to actually come into contact with the people being threatened is an explicit part of the law on inciting violence. Its the part that meant Bob Vylan were not guilty of inciting violence. In this case I think his defence was weak. But to suggest the jury was somehow biased or influenced by government is ridiculous.
I don't think there is any argument that this or anything else is two tier justice. Just look at the nearly 700 people arrested for sitting down holding signs saying "I oppose genocide" vs the groups of people doing the nazi salute in front of police at the recent far right riots and bot even being arrested or followed up on.They also did that to prompt the arrest to pursue their beliefs.It’s not the same thing to compare.I have no idea what the letter of the law is re Nazi salutes to be honest but of course that is deeply unpleasant.I’m observing the ‘oppose genocide’ group is a very specific scenario. Separate debate (not for here) as to whether they should be proscribed or not but as they are the ‘arrest’ has to follow (for now).
The point about the Palestine action protestors was to counter the frankly ridiculous "two tier" claim. As situations in the same week where whole groups of people were doing Nazi salutes in front of police with no consequence whereas sitting holding a sign protesting genocide got 700 people arrested. A separate comparison that shows the two tier claims to be complete bull.
700 people were not arrested for holding signs protesting genocide.
You seem to have taken a contrary position to the letter of the law in both examples.
for the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending scum who do Nazi salutes.3 -
2 -
No. But. Coz.... well.. it's only turning it political when the socialists reply to posts making factually incorrect political claims. Those claims themselves aren't the problem it's the reply that is.Gillis said:3 -
Good lord 😳charltonkeston said:It really annoys me when someone pleads guilty and gets dealt with really quickly and when someone pleads not guilty gets to walk away.
I’ve always had the opinion that if you have got as far as a court, you must have done something.7 -
Meaningless University degrees
1 -
Putin0
