Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 11:23 am 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.

Well, we all need a hobby

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 11:23 am 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.

And the tea plant has been grown only in human or animal manure (neither of which have been fed on any imported products or grown using oil by-=products. And nobody has bene treated with any pharmaceuticals in their lives either.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 10:59 am 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.

"If these silly little women want to have a vote in men's politics, they should stop this nonsense of disrupting our horse racing and just ask nicely".

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 11:23 am 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.

Now you're just trying to frighten me. It won't work. Someone once carved the word c u n t into the boot lid of my brothers car. Do you think it was Hallam?

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 11:33 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 11:23 am 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.

Now you're just trying to frighten me. It won't work. Someone once carved the word c u n t into the boot lid of my brothers car. Do you think it was Hallam?

Probably Alex Salmond thinking it was your car but to be honest, was he wrong?

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 9:54 am

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.

I think spreading conspiracy theories about the independent judiciary is damaging for our democracy

Actually, having just read the sentencing remarks, I can understand the rationale behind the sentences the judge handed down.

https://t.co/yLJTqKHDJs

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 2:34 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 9:54 am

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.

I think spreading conspiracy theories about the independent judiciary is damaging for our democracy

The judiciary are not independent of anything least of all class prejudice.

In Germany in the 30s the nazis introduced discriminatory legislation to suppress and criminalise workers. The independent judiciary went along with it because, after all, they were applying the law. In other words just doing what they were told.

The current situation is similar to that. The Tories passed legislation to deal specifically with preventing public protests like this when in fact there was adequate legislation to deal with any law breaking that might occur on an otherwise lawful protest.

So you accept that he broke the law but you think it’s a bad law

We’re getting somewhere

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 5:48 pm So you accept that he broke the law but you think it’s a bad law

We’re getting somewhere

Probably not, at no point have I said no laws were broken.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:44 pm Actually, having just read the sentencing remarks, I can understand the rationale behind the sentences the judge handed down.

https://t.co/yLJTqKHDJs

How? What new news is within that?

5 years in nick for causing a traffic jam is f*cking bonkers, however Wiggy wants to try and spin it.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:50 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:44 pm Actually, having just read the sentencing remarks, I can understand the rationale behind the sentences the judge handed down.

https://t.co/yLJTqKHDJs

How? What new news is within that?

5 years in nick for causing a traffic jam is f*cking bonkers, however Wiggy wants to try and spin it.

I reckon a crown court judge might be more qualified to make that decision than you

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:50 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:44 pm Actually, having just read the sentencing remarks, I can understand the rationale behind the sentences the judge handed down.

https://t.co/yLJTqKHDJs

How? What new news is within that?

5 years in nick for causing a traffic jam is f*cking bonkers, however Wiggy wants to try and spin it.

Because understanding rationale is a separate cognitive function from agreeing/disagreeing with a decision or outcome.

Reading paragraphs 1 to 8 and then 31 to 60 is illustrative. It's not just about causing a traffic jam.

I still believe the sentences are harsh though, even in my non-expert legal opinion.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:35 pm

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:50 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 4:44 pm Actually, having just read the sentencing remarks, I can understand the rationale behind the sentences the judge handed down.

https://t.co/yLJTqKHDJs

How? What new news is within that?

5 years in nick for causing a traffic jam is f*cking bonkers, however Wiggy wants to try and spin it.

Because understanding rationale is a separate cognitive function from agreeing/disagreeing with a decision or outcome.

Reading paragraphs 1 to 8 and then 31 to 60 is illustrative. It's not just about causing a traffic jam.

They didn't cause a traffic jam. They talked about causing one.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:38 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:35 pm

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:50 pm

How? What new news is within that?

5 years in nick for causing a traffic jam is f*cking bonkers, however Wiggy wants to try and spin it.

Because understanding rationale is a separate cognitive function from agreeing/disagreeing with a decision or outcome.

Reading paragraphs 1 to 8 and then 31 to 60 is illustrative. It's not just about causing a traffic jam.

They didn't cause a traffic jam. They talked about causing one.

Otherwise known as conspiracy. One which bore fruit.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:40 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:38 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 7:35 pm 7

Because understanding rationale is a separate cognitive function from agreeing/disagreeing with a decision or outcome.

Reading paragraphs 1 to 8 and then 31 to 60 is illustrative. It's not just about causing a traffic jam.

They didn't cause a traffic jam. They talked about causing one.

Otherwise known as conspiracy. One which bore fruit.

Were they located at Cato Street at the time with an agent provocateur in place?

Seems a reasonable guy

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... 1568129936

I sincerely hope you are not laying out evidence before us that in any way suggests this judge failed to retain his independence from being influenced by the ruling class( which he is quite obviously a member of)

Reading the sentencing remarks, it’s almost as if he’s lamely attempting to justify his rationale in handing out such an exorbitant sentence.

But am I a qualified barrister? No, so I’ll shut up.

Wonder of Hallam is considering the Ernest Saunders manoeuvre. 1) Receive 5 year prison sentence. 2) After a few months claim you've got Alzheimer's. 3) Get released after 10 months on compassionate grounds. 4) Recover from Alzheimer's. Not sure that Hallam will have the right sort of friends in high enough places though.

The Judge has set out a cogent explanation that includes conspiracy, intent, disregard of consequences, actual harm and damages incurred by JSOs victims, prior convictions, and vexatious conduct in court. If the conspirators are to be allowed an appeal, the Judges remarks will be key in their success or otherwise.

It's fine to understand this, and still think the sentences are harsh.

It's fine to understand this, and think other crimes (which may or may not be helpful comparisons) have resulted in more lenient sentences or lack of justice.

It's also fine to read the remarks and think that, while feeling harsh, the sentences handed down can be rationalised.

But Hallam and his merry band of f*ckwits have deliberately set out to break specific laws, such as the public nuisance offence, and are now bleating about consequences. It's been Hallam's stated aim to have his supporters arrested and charged. Ultimately, this is what they wanted.

The meltdown over a convicted criminal and efforts to discredit judges is great to watch and incredibly Trumpy

Keep it up