Best Of

ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.

Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.

I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.

The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.

How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?

The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.

Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.

We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.

No one gives a shit. Her health and wellbeing is more important. To most of,us.

If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.

Everyone should give a shit. It's the most important principle in a criminal justice system. You just don't have the imagination required to realise this.

Your post demonstrates that you don't understand - the jury wasn't asked to convict them on an act of terror, and the evidence of political motivation was deliberately excluded from the trial.

It's happened again. See social media for video footage of the incident.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gypqp0rp9o

Girl, 17, stabbed in the neck in street attack

The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.

Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?

Who knows, because back in 1977 we didn't have phones and CCTV to film all this stuff and make it as 'newsworthy'. That's what's different now - the amount captured on film and distributed on social media.

However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.

ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.

Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.

I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.

The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.

I am not a lawyer so I don't understand how their sentencing can possibly be legal.

All four were convicted of criminal damage and sentenced for that crime. One other sentenced for twatting a WPC.

People are whining because. From the BBC site.

‘ The case is believed to be the first time that convictions for criminal damage have been classified as being connected to terrorism.’

Isn’t it the post hoc classification of terrorism that people have a problem with? If I get a speeding ticket I don’t want a dangerous driving charge coming down the line after I’ve (reluctantly) paid the fine.

That, and the fact that this post hoc classification is only applied to one type of violent protestor. Why isn't trying to burn down an ayslum hostel a terrorist offence? Blowing up ULEZ cameras? Both have underlying political motivations.

One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”

https://bsky.app/profile/rodger.bsky.social/post/3mo4o2wcf622m

Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.

Peter.

yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV

I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?

Start warming up the school busses!

America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?

Are you thinking of some pedo guy?

No. Musk is the ket guy.

He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.

Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.

That's his version, but it isn't borne out by the actual emails they exchanged:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/expressed-interest-visiting-jeffrey-epstein-island-emails-show-doj-rcna256784

Epstein initiated the conversation, and Musk didn’t go to the island.

Which conversation? Epstein may have made initial contact (although the files we have cast doubt on that, they are not conclusive) but certainly on the evidence we have (rather than Musk's statements) it's certainly Musk that was angling for the invitation and Epstein kept putting him off.

Otoh Musk proposed taking his wife/girlfriend along so even if he expected an orgy, it was probably not an underaged one he had in mind.

ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.

Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.

I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.

The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.

How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?

The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.

Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.

We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.

No one gives a shit. Her health and wellbeing is more important. To most of,us.

If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.

Yes, and that is the point. Try people for terrorism and let juries convict. What has happened here is they were found guilty of lesser offences after which the prosecution and judge conjured terrorism out of thin air to pass far stiffer sentences.

They’re tried for criminal damage but from the Beeb report the terrorism element was an aggravating factor as determined by the court.

“ Under the law, anyone guilty of a standard offence can receive a longer sentence if a court rules that the manner in which the crime was committed could be said to meet the definition of terrorism.”

ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.

Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.

I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.

The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.

How’s the WPC one of them bludgeoned and accused of being complicit in a Genocide ?

The man who did that was rightly convicted of grievous bodily harm. He was not convicted of a terrorism offence, and has been sentenced for that anyway, along with those only (rightly) convicted of criminal damage.

Future such convictions have been put in jeopardy by this. There is zero chance I would now convict any political protestor of any crime because I would be afraid I would be inadvertently convicting them of terrorism, having been duped by the State.

We haven't had WPC's for 27 years btw. Keep up.

No one gives a shit. Her health and wellbeing is more important. To most of,us.

If I was on the jury of such a case I’d gladly convict if the evidence was there. I wouldn’t let off terrorists from acts of terror and I wouldn’t convict if the evidence was not there to my satisfaction.