[Kate!]

Extremely well said and researched Cherie

[Maru]

Locking people up for simply just words is not something I can ever support, but when it is the law of the land, the law should be applied fairly.

My question: Is this something society agrees on or is it being imposed by a select portion of the establishment? Political censorship will always be a possibility if govt can punish any form of speech. Especially if it is done through unequal application of the law.

The only real problem I had with her post is her references to arson but it is not terroristic in nature if and only if it is not making a direct threat. Suggesting they "don't care" if someone burns is not that, but still not great.

It is on the border though given they're making a political statement that aligns with a violent sentiment. That I can see being the reason the judge made it no question that it was unacceptable as the law within sentencing guidelines could allow it, especially where insinuations of arson against specific groups can used as justifications for further enhancement. So I can see where the sentence was set as long as it was based on that pretext.

For comparison, matters involving speech where it is showing intent (required) to harm someone is considered aggravated assault (a felony) in the US under most guidelines so that's how it is handled here without ever invoking the First Amendment and doesn't require the actual act be carried out. There does have to be a direct victim though and no, buildings don't count. So it would likely fall under some terroristic charge with proven intent.

On the topic of arson, I'm sure she as a dedicated mother would be thrilled if her kids had to live in a world where they could just walk down a street and watch people get burned alive in a building (and the screams, just great) and that that is how social order is maintained. People don't think about what they say. I get this. Deletions don't really matter though. It's already out there. One can't retract a thought once it is made public.

Still locking people up or forcing people to censor themselves won't change their beliefs but it will have the very real effect on the rest of the population that they can't even air out any kind of controversial thought lest they fall on the wrong side of public opinion and potentially the law. (Public opinion absolutely empowers court decision/rulings) This by far has a worse effect than just the words spoken as the effect lasts much longer than the ruling, whereas words spoken are often forgotten not long after they are said.

A judge will make a faulty ruling if they think they can get away with it. The judicial system has a dark side that most people don't find out until they're subject to unfair charges or on the wrong side of the current political envrionment. You do not want judges or prosecutors to have that kind of power over speech when they can upend your entire livelihood, including your ability to get employment or housing, just because they feel like it or don't like something you said. We lose a lot of personal rights unofficially when we are charged with something (fairly or not) like a felony or other serious charges in the US because it effects things like background checks and being able to obtain credit. Months (if not years) of fighting for a proper court decision can easily and very often does ruin lives, regardless of whether they can bond out. That's why so many people just take a plea.

The UK does not have Freedom of Speech and the above is why hate speech laws will never be a thing I support. I may not like what you have to say but support your right to say it, etc. Obviously threats of harm of a terroristic or personal nature should be prosecuted to its fullest extent.

[thesheriff443]

There was only one reason for those involved in the riots and social media posts getting jailed and the sentences being so harsh and it wasn’t for justice it was to stop anyone else thinking of doing the same thing

[Maru]

It is a bit backwards that a legal citizen can have their rights stripped while immigrants enjoy a different standard. They enjoy protections and free access to resources that others have to compete over and they may or may not have the same expectation put on them to follow and abide by the law. Yet expecting legal citizens to do so under very strict terms is very much forcing the citizenry to avoid speaking out on bad policy because even a complaint that is spoken out of measure (badly worded) can land someone in trouble.

It's also why people riot. If they think they're under that much pressure and are being suppressed/forced to stay silent, they will find a way to vent that anger regardless as there is more power in a mob. This is why free speech matters.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Maru

It is a bit backwards that a legal citizen can have their rights stripped while immigrants enjoy a different standard. They enjoy protections and free access to resources that others have to compete over and they may or may not have the same expectation put on them to follow and abide by the law.

I completely agree and thought your other post too was great.

[Beso]

ncredible that questioning why someone having child is being used a reason for them not to go to prison is a disgusting take but someone advocating for migrants to burned alive isn’t.





And just when did she say that?

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Beso

And just when did she say that?

Have you read this thread? The furthest Cherie has gone to criticise her is call her "a bit silly".

*Woman puts out racist violence-inciting rhetoric*
Cherie: Silly, bright, articulate, gracious, confident, brave and honest.

*I say she shouldn't be excused from being punishing for committing a crime because she has a child*
Cherie: Disgusting and dismissive.

If someone could rationalise that, that would be great.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Have you read this thread? The furthest Cherie has gone to criticise her is call her "a bit silly".

*Woman puts out racist violence-inciting rhetoric*
Cherie: Silly, bright, articulate, gracious, confident, brave and honest.

*I say she shouldn't be excused from being punishing for committing a crime because she has a child*
Cherie: Disgusting and dismissive.

If someone could rationalise that, that would be great.

I'm asking you when Lucy connnellly called for the burning alive of migrants, like you claimed she did.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Beso

I'm asking you when Lucy connnellly called for the burning alive of migrants, like you claimed she did.

I think in this bit: "set fire to all the ****ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care"

Hope that helps.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I think in this bit: "set fire to all the ****ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care"

Hope that helps.

That comes across to me like she's saying she doesn't care if hotels that house them are burned to the ground. It certainly doesn't sound like she wants the people burned alive, just the hotels that house them.

[Glenn.]

Which she can switch on and off like a button when questioned?

I think you need to make up another excuse for her vile racial hatred. That one doesn’t stick especially as she said on her own admission that she “play the mental health card”.

Next

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Which she can switch on and off like a button when questioned?

I think you need to make up another excuse for her vile racial hatred. That one doesn’t stick especially as she said on her own admission that she “play the mental health card”.

Next

No I don't need to do nothing you think.


You got your answer, your hatred just makes you blind to it.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Beso

No I don't need to do nothing you think.


You got your answer, your hatred just makes you blind to it.

It’s because you can’t excuse it.

That’s the bottom line.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

It’s because you can’t excuse it.

That’s the bottom line.

I just did.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Beso

I just did.

You didn’t but ok sure, I’m already bored.

No one can excuse it because it’s indefensible. It’s been eye opening and sickening to see fellow members desperately try to.

[Maru]

The way I read it, she said she didn't care that the hotel burned with all the migrants and would've been just fine if the politicians went up with them. That seemed to infer that she was OK if the migrants were inside the building also as there is a "with them". I didn't think that interpretation was that controversial... (Thank you for people who kept re-posting it so I didn't have to go back through 13 16 pages...)

Her emotional state may be more open to interpretation, but I don't find exercises in mind reading in either direction to be particularly useful, especially when it comes to the law.

If she was being held accountable for the potential results or effects of what is said or implied, it doesn't really matter what her subconscious intent was.. because the words alone could lead to deleterious effects, again, according to the law. A law that I think is far too broad and easy to abuse for political gains, but that's besides the point...

Whether she was fragile, had PTSD, was hopped up on hormones, whatever.. consider if a person threatens someone with the intent for violence (not in this case), it still constitutes a threat regardless of how heated that person might've been for a short period.

The law in that instance is only looking at the expressed intent behind the initial threat. Potential "victims" or innocent bystanders have no way of interpreting how meaningful or meaningless their threat or rhetoric is... and they're not expected to know that. Serious threats have very negative consequences on the psyche and livelihood of another person even if they're not carried out... it would be enough for the law in that case, so I imagine on laws that regulate or penalize violent or volatile speech, it would be even easier to label it as such...

Using the same example, in the case of a received threat, all a victim might see is "Hey this person wants to harm me..."... in the case of rhetoric, my understanding is the intent to use rhetoric that might fuel heightened situations with the possibility (however minor) to incite further violence as supposedly some actors will perceive that as support, would be enough for a violation... that bit is arguable to me because I do think that people say stupid **** in the "heat of the moment" (pun not intended)... doesn't make it morally right, no, but it's getting into mind reading and I'm not one who is comfortable with the govt's free agency in interpreting or misinterpreting that... (spoiler: always in the govt's favor)... in this case, a stiff ruling is the govt saying "Here's my big strong arm and this is not acceptable".

I wouldn't suggest she is directly threatening to burn a building or is even capable of such, but she used volatile rhetoric and that was enough to meet the standard in the law. Don't blame the people "misinterpreting it". How do we know either way what her actual intent was? We're not mind readers and the law isn't really designed for that either, that's why speech-based rulings are so dubious ... blame the law that decided this was illegal conduct, not the people who heard it and thought they saw a flaming support (pun intended) in favor of increasing violence... it was open enough to interpretation that the law was able to be used to penalize her...

If you as a citizen can't trust other people to interpret words "correctly" then you almost certainly don't want to leave the govt with that power...

[bots]

@Maru The problem at the time was that protestors were actually trying to burn immigration centres down. The whole prosecution was done very quickly and she was used as an example to stop others. Her legal representative should have delayed proceedings until everyone calmed down

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by bots

@Maru The problem at the time was that protestors were actually trying to burn immigration centres down. The whole prosecution was done very quickly and she was used as an example to stop others. Her legal representative should have delayed proceedings until everyone calmed down

Well some cretins set a tiny fire outside a brick and concrete structure that was quicky extinguished, as i recall it was 2 young 16 year old kids. Another lad who tried and failed to set a fire outside a center got 9 years so that is what was used to deter others

Not a mum who tweeted to a very small number of pals and lots of bots a that was was quickly deleted.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Well some cretins set a tiny fire outside a brick and concrete structure that was quicky extinguished, as i recall it was 2 young 16 year old kids. Another lad who tried and failed to set a fire outside a center got 9 years so that is what was used to deter others

Not a mum who tweeted to a very small number of pals and lots of bots a that was was quickly deleted.

How dumb does one have to be get locked up for 9 years for attempted arson. The building will be fixed and the most of it forgotten before they're even sentenced.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bots

@Maru The problem at the time was that protestors were actually trying to burn immigration centres down. The whole prosecution was done very quickly and she was used as an example to stop others. Her legal representative should have delayed proceedings until everyone calmed down

Deleting or penalizing a single post wouldn't have an effect as it doesn't create the opportunity for violence. The bigger impacts would be from arresting people known for destroying public property and attacking citizens and making that public. In many places, criminals get enhancements to charges when you touch a civil servant or property, so it would be harder to quickly release them at that level. That's more than a good enough deterrent without the effect of being controversial in a way that possibly creates more dissidents.

People who riot already have the mentality to create public disorder... they're looking for protests with lax security and victims that are sitting ducks or who are surrounded by people who won't intervene and maybe even will participate. That's why when we have even small protests here, we almost immediately schedule people right away who are trained in riots and have access to riot gear because any potential is high enough.

The rioters are not waiting and sitting around checking X to see if anyone even agrees with them... that would imply that if one had enough people disagreeing with them, that speech alone could disable what they're already capable of. Instead, they're just looking for the best opportunity and none of that has to do with people posting negative comments online...

My opinion is they likely punished her to compensate for the fact they let it get out of control in the first place. It has the effect of chilling speech, but it doesn't just chill speech around the support of the riots, it also shuts down the criticism of law enforcement because it appeases enough of the right people that they'll become vocal supporters for govt.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Lucy Connolly is a scapegoat, sacrificed to obscure the manifest failures of
multiculturalism. She should be released immediately.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Lucy Connolly is a scapegoat, sacrificed to obscure the manifest failures of
multiculturalism. She should be released immediately.

The truth in a nutshell.

[Vanessa]

Going to jail for a tweet or if you say you like bacon is wrong. In what world that is an acceptable punishment?
This government is very keen on censoring people.

[Vanessa]

In the meantime real criminals get a lot less. The criminal system is broken.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Vanessa

In the meantime real criminals get a lot less. The criminal system is broken.

I agree with you that the hardcore criminals need to face longer sentences.