UK far right trouble

stonerblue said:
So you think there will be a prosecution but you want it to be quicker?
And because it's taking ages it means we have two tier policing?
Click to expand...

sometimes justice needs investigation which takes time. R/W bots and morons like him just seek to make trouble - just block him and he has no oxygen and dies.

www.bbc.co.uk

Man, 92, to go on trial for historic Bristol rape and murder case

Louisa Dunne, 75, was found strangled on her living room floor by a neighbour in 1967.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
KDB Fan said:
Starmer is a victim of the response by the police, CPS, and judiciary to the riots. They did far more to prove two-tier policing than anything any right-wing protester could ever say, and he's paying the price for it with his political capital.

I haven't mentioned anything about any airport incident but I'm assuming that's the one where the coppers were assaulted and no charges were brought? I wouldn't hold your breath for charges to be brought and regardless of that case, I think people have seen enough to make their mind up about whether the justice system treats everyone equally.
Click to expand...
You’re off your rocker and must be down some real shit-hole to believe that. Labour, and Starmer are unpopular because they haven’t done popular policies, as in, they are trying to sort the issues of the country.

He’s a boring **** anyway, having boring, unpopular policies will always hurt. Is that what really matters though? Shouldn’t it be the value of life and how we live, ensuring the NHS …

You know what, I got sucked in again.

*reminder to oneself, ‘Don’t do it’*
 
KDB Fan said:
Yep I read the article which shows very clearly, with figures to boot, that judges are going rogue against the wishes of Parliament and two different Acts Of Parliament that were drafted to crackdown on knife crime more harshly.

They have a lot of discretion and use that discretion to pass sentences that sometimes support or offend our sense of justice but the idea the justice system is 'entirely based on the rules and sentencing guidelines' is not the reality in my opinion.

I would argue almost none of the rioters' cases fit the sentencing criteria as if it's a simple, mathematical process.
Click to expand...

So you're just ignoring the response of the magistrates as part of that then? It is absolutely entirely based on the rules and sentencing guidelines, I think you’re trying to argue you don’t agree with the guidelines?

On your second point, I just googled people jailed for online racial hatred for the riots and this one came up -

www.bbc.co.uk

Northampton man jailed after inciting racial hatred online - BBC News

Kay admits “in hindsight” some of his posts “made [him] look like an idiot”.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

So here’s the sentencing guidelines for that -

Racial hatred offences/ Hatred against persons on religious grounds or grounds of sexual orientation – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

And here’s the judge’s sentencing remarks -


Do you really think that didn’t fit the sentencing criteria? On what basis if so? Or was I just lucky enough to just find the one that was the “almost none” that fitted it?
 
Another one that wasn’t involved directly in the riots but got sentenced due to stirring up racial hatred, this one got a lot of public attention at the time as it was the wife of a conservative councillor -

www.bbc.co.uk

Politician's wife Lucy Connolly jailed for race hate post - BBC News

Lucy Connolly, wife of West Northamptonshire councillor Raymond Connolly, is jailed for 31 months.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Here’s the sentencing remarks for that one -


Again, what doesn’t fit the sentencing guidelines?
 
KDB Fan said:
I don't know the facts of the Huw Edwards case to be honest but as a very strong rule, I would rather the prison spaces we have available be taken up by child abusers than people posting comments online, however nasty those comments may be.

Only 1 in 2 of those convicted of child abuse offences go to prison.
Click to expand...
You don’t really know the facts on many of these riot cases either.

Just cherry pick what you (or X.com) want to see.

I think the sentencing guidelines are out of kilter, and I’d recommend the Secret Barristers book who explains it for the layman; very insightful.
 
meltonblue said:
So you're just ignoring the response of the magistrates as part of that then? It is absolutely entirely based on the rules and sentencing guidelines, I think you’re trying to argue you don’t agree with the guidelines?

On your second point, I just googled people jailed for online racial hatred for the riots and this one came up -

www.bbc.co.uk

Northampton man jailed after inciting racial hatred online - BBC News

Kay admits “in hindsight” some of his posts “made [him] look like an idiot”.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

So here’s the sentencing guidelines for that -

Racial hatred offences/ Hatred against persons on religious grounds or grounds of sexual orientation – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

And here’s the judge’s sentencing remarks -


Do you really think that didn’t fit the sentencing criteria? On what basis if so? Or was I just lucky enough to just find the one that was the “almost none” that fitted it?
Click to expand...
Great post
 
Hilarious that anyone would think there’s some sort of organised conspiracy regarding sentencing when it came to the riots.

The primary function of the courts is to uphold the rule of law, deter future offending and act in a way that is just in the circumstances. And the need to do justice isn’t just directed at defendants but wider society.

The courts, like the police and local authorities (for example) are very much part of the establishment (how could they not be?). They will instinctively want to protect the status quo. This isn’t unique to this country.

When order is breaking down (or is in danger of so doing) then in its position as part of the establishment, the court is going to act swiftly, decisively and maybe harshly in order to uphold the rule of law and deter others.

It’s an involuntary reflex rather than anything that involves coercion or express direction.

It’s simply an organ of the state acting naturally to maintain a level of order in society and send a clear message out.

Which the courts unquestionably did.
 
meltonblue said:
So you're just ignoring the response of the magistrates as part of that then? It is absolutely entirely based on the rules and sentencing guidelines, I think you’re trying to argue you don’t agree with the guidelines?

On your second point, I just googled people jailed for online racial hatred for the riots and this one came up -

www.bbc.co.uk

Northampton man jailed after inciting racial hatred online - BBC News

Kay admits “in hindsight” some of his posts “made [him] look like an idiot”.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

So here’s the sentencing guidelines for that -

Racial hatred offences/ Hatred against persons on religious grounds or grounds of sexual orientation – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

And here’s the judge’s sentencing remarks -


Do you really think that didn’t fit the sentencing criteria? On what basis if so? Or was I just lucky enough to just find the one that was the “almost none” that fitted it?
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw what the magistrate had written but realised it was a load of nonsense:

He said: “For example, some of those pleading guilty may have had the knife for a reasonable reason but do not meet the requirements for a statutory defence.”
Click to expand...

"I was just going hunting, your honour".

The spokesperson tried defending the indefensible. He was never gonna come out and say 'yep we've gone rogue against Parliament's wishes but so what'.


As for the case you posted, I can't really answer whether the judge has sentenced the defendant more harshly in relation to somebody who committed the same offence against a white offender for example, which is the crux of what the two-tier policing allegations centre on. If you can find me a comparable case then I might be inclined to change my mind? I've found a case where somebody has clearly incited hate, violence, and murder but no evidence that he was arrested, let alone sentenced to the same length of offence.

www.express.co.uk

Rapper encourages the BEHEADING of Nigel Farage in sick music video

A RAPPER has released a music video calling for the decapitation of Nigel Farage and a host of other famous British figures.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk

“I say, if they don’t get out of town, we kill the men, we kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies, we kill the blind, we kill the cripple, we kill the crazy… I say god dammit we kill them all.”
Click to expand...

Also, on a general point, when I said most cases don't fit the sentencing criteria as if it's 'a simple, mathematical process', that's because there is a huge amount of discretion built into the rules. Sentencing isn't a science and as much as judges try and invoke the rules to sound like it is, it's not. Hence why you get wildly different sentences for the same offence.
 
meltonblue said:
Another one that wasn’t involved directly in the riots but got sentenced due to stirring up racial hatred, this one got a lot of public attention at the time as it was the wife of a conservative councillor -

www.bbc.co.uk

Politician's wife Lucy Connolly jailed for race hate post - BBC News

Lucy Connolly, wife of West Northamptonshire councillor Raymond Connolly, is jailed for 31 months.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Here’s the sentencing remarks for that one -


Again, what doesn’t fit the sentencing guidelines?
Click to expand...

Again, find me a comparable case...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.