Even a judge who did not give a police officer who raped a woman when she was drunk a prison sentence. Describing his actions as "a moment of madness" ?
His judgement seems sound and will be overturned on appeal.
On what legal basis?
Bias and misdirection by the judge together with abuse of process.
No way!?
I’m sure you can provide evidence to back that up!?
Also miscarriage of justice, use of an agent provocateur. I could go on. I followed this trial quite closely as did Novara Media and we are both in agreement.
Whether you accept or even understand the science, the actions of the judge were outrageous. Did he have a personal bee in his bonnet about the group, or was pressure applied from above to dish out extreme sentences to set an example?
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 8:55 pm
Also miscarriage of justice, use of an agent provocateur. I could go on. I followed this trial quite closely as did Novara Media and we are both in agreement.
Guys mental. Just look at the length of that rant.
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 8:55 pm
Also miscarriage of justice, use of an agent provocateur. I could go on. I followed this trial quite closely as did Novara Media and we are both in agreement.
Guys mental. Just look at the length of that rant.
If I got 5 years for stopping some traffic, my rant would be considerably longer
I sometimes watch these Traffic Cop programmes on TV. Typically, a young scote in a stolen high powered car will scorch through Nottingham city centre at 120 mph with pedestrians diving for cover. He will smash into a few parked cars and narrowly avoid head on collisions on several occasions when driving on the wrong side of the road in his desperation to avoid capture. When he cornered he will ram several police cars before eventually being nicked. The sentence will be a meaningless few years driving ban ( he is invariably already banned from driving) and a few hours unpaid work. And this other fella gets 5 years for stopping traffic
Celtient wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:27 am
I sometimes watch these Traffic Cop programmes on TV. Typically, a young scote in a stolen high powered car will scorch through Nottingham city centre at 120 mph with pedestrians diving for cover. He will smash into a few parked cars and narrowly avoid head on collisions on several occasions when driving on the wrong side of the road in his desperation to avoid capture. When he cornered he will ram several police cars before eventually being nicked. The sentence will be a meaningless few years driving ban ( he is invariably already banned from driving) and a few hours unpaid work. And this other fella gets 5 years for stopping traffic
This perfectly sums up the madness of this sentence.
Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:49 am
I see it’s moved on from legal opinion without evidence to conspiracy theories
At some point will you be addressing the fundamental issue of the behaviour of the judge in denying the accused the right to defend himself.
This is how courts in 1930s Germany and Russia operated. Can you not see how our so called democracy is being dismantled even further and how serious a development this is?
In your reply it would be good to not be snide and to try and play the ball not the man.
Celtient wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:27 am
I sometimes watch these Traffic Cop programmes on TV. Typically, a young scote in a stolen high powered car will scorch through Nottingham city centre at 120 mph with pedestrians diving for cover. He will smash into a few parked cars and narrowly avoid head on collisions on several occasions when driving on the wrong side of the road in his desperation to avoid capture. When he cornered he will ram several police cars before eventually being nicked. The sentence will be a meaningless few years driving ban ( he is invariably already banned from driving) and a few hours unpaid work. And this other fella gets 5 years for stopping traffic
This perfectly sums up the madness of this sentence.
It does and what sentence should the police receive for stopping traffic, often with no legal reason.
I'm no legal* expert but, when I first read the sentences, my initial thought was that this was very much intended to grab the headlines whilst in the knowledge that the sentence would be reduced on appeal. If that turns out to be the case, then it will be an example of the judiciary being overtly political, which would be as bad as the unfairness of the length of the sentences relative to other crimes.
Roger Hallam and his disciples are bunch of f*ckwits. But that makes them an easy and unsympathetic target. As ever in these cases, people should always ask themselves how they'd feel if this happened to people they felt more aligned to.
*or in any other field - but that's never stopped me from wading in before.
Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 10:01 am
I'm no legal* expert but, when I first read the sentences, my initial thought was that this was very much intended to grab the headlines whilst in the knowledge that the sentence would be reduced on appeal. If that turns out to be the case, then it will be an example of the judiciary being overtly political, which would be as bad as the unfairness of the length of the sentences relative to other crimes.
Roger Hallam and his disciples are bunch of f*ckwits. But that makes them an easy and unsympathetic target. As ever in these cases, people should always ask themselves how they'd feel if this happened to people they felt more aligned to.
*or in any other field - but that's never stopped me from wading in before.
The convictions will be quashed on appeal as there has been a serious miscarriage of justice. I can say this with all the authority of a barrack room lawyer.
Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:49 am
I see it’s moved on from legal opinion without evidence to conspiracy theories
At some point will you be addressing the fundamental issue of the behaviour of the judge in denying the accused the right to defend himself.
This is how courts in 1930s Germany and Russia operated. Can you not see how our so called democracy is being dismantled even further and how serious a development this is?
In your reply it would be good to not be snide and to try and play the ball not the man.
He talked for hours and hours. He had plenty of opportunity but used his time to give a lecture and bored everyone to death.
People should have the right to protest, but not stomp over everyone elses rights while doing so.
Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 10:01 am
I'm no legal* expert but, when I first read the sentences, my initial thought was that this was very much intended to grab the headlines whilst in the knowledge that the sentence would be reduced on appeal. If that turns out to be the case, then it will be an example of the judiciary being overtly political, which would be as bad as the unfairness of the length of the sentences relative to other crimes.
Roger Hallam and his disciples are bunch of f*ckwits. But that makes them an easy and unsympathetic target. As ever in these cases, people should always ask themselves how they'd feel if this happened to people they felt more aligned to.
*or in any other field - but that's never stopped me from wading in before.
I am way more of a legal expert than you, having very possibly sat a contract law paper at some point in the dim and distant past, and in my more qualified opinion, you are correct. The daft old fossil has done it for exactly the reason the laws have been changed in the first place, to stop people from protesting as the world around us starts to crumble at an ever increasing rate.
Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:49 am
I see it’s moved on from legal opinion without evidence to conspiracy theories
At some point will you be addressing the fundamental issue of the behaviour of the judge in denying the accused the right to defend himself.
This is how courts in 1930s Germany and Russia operated. Can you not see how our so called democracy is being dismantled even further and how serious a development this is?
In your reply it would be good to not be snide and to try and play the ball not the man.
He talked for hours and hours. He had plenty of opportunity but used his time to give a lecture and bored everyone to death.
People should have the right to protest, but not stomp over everyone elses rights while doing so.
People have a right to protest as long as no one else is inconvenienced.
At some point will you be addressing the fundamental issue of the behaviour of the judge in denying the accused the right to defend himself.
This is how courts in 1930s Germany and Russia operated. Can you not see how our so called democracy is being dismantled even further and how serious a development this is?
In your reply it would be good to not be snide and to try and play the ball not the man.
He talked for hours and hours. He had plenty of opportunity but used his time to give a lecture and bored everyone to death.
People should have the right to protest, but not stomp over everyone elses rights while doing so.
People have a right to protest as long as no one else is inconvenienced.
You just know some people on here would be going red in the face yelling "come on, lady, just give up your seat so the bus can get moving!" while simultaneously claiming they support the right to protest.
He can't. He's in jail after a serious miscarriage of justice.
But if he did I would invite him in for a cuppa and let him chat his science to me and I would promise to listen and not interrupt or have him arrested.
He doesnt drink tea unless the leaves were delivered by horse and cart and your kettle is wind powered. He's chained himself across your front door and spray painted slogans on your car.
