• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Tommy Robinson

Spiderman said:
Shame Lucy Connolly is going to have to serve another 2 years, absolute f***ing disgrace
Click to expand...
Not when you know what she actually did. She was no innocent bystander making an ill judged comment on social media. She was fully aware of what she was doing She was encouraging others to violence that could easily have caused deaths and is an unapologetic racist.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Not when you know what she actually did. She was no innocent bystander making an ill judged comment on social media. She was fully aware of what she was doing She was encouraging others to violence that could easily have caused deaths and is an unapologetic racist.
Click to expand...
If only she had been a BBC employed paedo instead, eh! Any news on the Labour “slit throat” councillor? Presumably you hope he gets similar.
In the past, have you stated that people deserve a second chance, having learnt from their mistakes? She has a young family ffs and has served over 9 months and will serve another 2 years. Is she unapologetic? Are you sure she hasn’t apologised? I think she has,
 
There are a few on HOL who've typed a few things that have garnered yellow cards. Most of us are back on the keyboards again, being less offensive and provocative. Perhaps the MODs should consider incarceration of rule-breakers, rather than this rather liberal 'warning' approach. 😀
 
Spiderman said:
If only she had been a BBC employed paedo instead, eh! Any news on the Labour “slit throat” councillor? Presumably you hope he gets similar.
In the past, have you stated that people deserve a second chance, having learnt from their mistakes? She has a young family ffs and has served over 9 months and will serve another 2 years. Is she unapologetic? Are you sure she hasn’t apologised? I think she has,
Click to expand...
I make no distinction because of political views on the appropriate punishment for inciting violence. Only the law determines that and those who administer it are in possession of all the facts, which we aren’t.

I read the statement made by the appeal court which said the application for an appeal for a reduced sentence had no legal merit. They have no role in assessing the merits of a compassionate release because of family concerns. Only in assessing whether an appeal against the original sentence could be heard. Here it is:-


So all the hot air being blown about on this is without merit. She was sentenced to 31 months, half of which will be served on licence if she behaves. So in a few months she should be out whatever else happens. My understanding is that contact releases are already being made.

I also think that an application for an early compassionate release would be very likely to succeed, especially in today’s circumstances, but this is done quietly by the Prison Service, not the Courts.

That though would not get the headlines that the refusal of an appeal has. The system showing compassion is not what the right want to be seen! They want to portray the justice system as heartless.

So I think Lucy Connolly is being used by the right as a pawn in their determination to suggest they are marginalised victims.
 
Spiderman said:
Shame Lucy Connolly is going to have to serve another 2 years, absolute f***ing disgrace
Click to expand...
When you look at the soft sentences being dished out for violent crime and drugs it's a joke.

We need to repeal these so called hate crime laws and codify freedom of speech.* That does not mean a free for all but hurty words is not a crime in my book.

It was telling that when Blair passed the Human Rights law the one right he did not include was Freedom of Speech possibly the most important right in any democracy.

And it is to there ever lasting shame that he Tories did nothing about it.
 
Badger11 said:
When you look at the soft sentences being dished out for violent crime and drugs it's a joke.

We need to repeal these so called hate crime laws and codify freedom of speech.* That does not mean a free for all but hurty words is not a crime in my book.

It was telling that when Blair passed the Human Rights law the one right he did not include was Freedom of Speech possibly the most important right in any democracy.

And it is to there ever lasting shame that he Tories did nothing about it.
Click to expand...
The current obsession that the right has with “hurty words” reveals a very obvious misunderstanding about what the freedom of speech really is.

We are all free to express ourselves freely in ways which others might find offensive. What we cannot do is express ourselves in ways which have been determined to be unlawful. Others have rights too, and one of those is that the law is abided by.

Inciting violence is against the law. We are not free to use words which do so.
 
Badger11 said:
When you look at the soft sentences being dished out for violent crime and drugs it's a joke.

We need to repeal these so called hate crime laws and codify freedom of speech.* That does not mean a free for all but hurty words is not a crime in my book.

It was telling that when Blair passed the Human Rights law the one right he did not include was Freedom of Speech possibly the most important right in any democracy.

And it is to there ever lasting shame that he Tories did nothing about it.
Click to expand...

Whilst I'm happy to admit I think the punishment is hugely excessive, I think the freedom of speech angle is difficult to make here - she has plead guilty to "incitement to endanger life" which has been a pretty serious criminal offense for the best part of 50 years. Nothing to do with hate crime laws or hurty words.

I think the punishment is a nonsense, but I also think the 'two-tier' 'free speech' angles are also nonsense - JSO protesters got 2 years for throwing soup... courts and judges give out stupid sentences sometimes!
 
georgenorman said:
She was not found guilty, she pleaded guilty after following misguided legal advice. If she had had trial by jury she would have been cleared as others were in a similar position.
Click to expand...
Those who plead guilty are almost always found guilty too. Rarely a Court can reject their plea because of misguided advice. They didn’t in this case! So it wasn’t misguided!

What a jury would have decided is unknown and unknowable.

That, of course, doesn’t stop know it alls thinking they know.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
Whilst I'm happy to admit I think the punishment is hugely excessive, I think the freedom of speech angle is difficult to make here - she has plead guilty to "incitement to endanger life" which has been a pretty serious criminal offense for the best part of 50 years. Nothing to do with hate crime laws or hurty words.

I think the punishment is a nonsense, but I also think the 'two-tier' 'free speech' angles are also nonsense - JSO protesters got 2 years for throwing soup... courts and judges give out stupid sentences sometimes!
Click to expand...
After multiple previous convictions ?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Those who plead guilty are almost always found guilty too. Rarely a Court can reject their plea because of misguided advice. They didn’t in this case! So it wasn’t misguided!

What a jury would have decided is unknown and unknowable.

That, of course, doesn’t stop know it alls thinking they know.
Click to expand...
Being called a 'know it all' by you is like Will Hughes telling me I get too many yellow cards.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Those who plead guilty are almost always found guilty too. Rarely a Court can reject their plea because of misguided advice. They didn’t in this case! So it wasn’t misguided!

What a jury would have decided is unknown and unknowable.

That, of course, doesn’t stop know it alls thinking they know.
Click to expand...
Oh the irony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top