• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

Mojo said:
A pre-sentence report is prepared by the Probation Service rather than social services, and is fairly standard before sentencing: "for offenders aged 18 or over, a PSR should be obtained unless the court considers it unnecessary".

Do you have any information about "Special Reports" such as the one you say was ordered in this case?
Click to expand...
It is not standard. Like I said. If you are unsure, you can Google it for yourself.
 
smartcooky said:
So she incited people to start doing things they were already doing? You've been reading Philip K. Dick's "The Minority Report" haven't you?:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Yeah, shift those goalposts baby. Also insert the word "start" into your description so that everyone can clearly see how you're distorting the facts. Nobody else - especially not the judge - used the word "start".

smartcooky said:
I don't pay any attention anything that Rogan has to say - he's an alt-right moron.
Click to expand...
Really? That's weird, because you repeat his talking points almost word-for-word, and soon after he makes them.

smartcooky said:
But I do find it somewhat interesting that you seem to know a lot about the content of his broadcasts! ;)
Click to expand...
I listen to The Know Rogan Experience, in which two well-known and respected skeptics dissect and break down Rogan's "interviews" and expose his lies and conspiracy theories.

1767481078176.png

Note that they say "no previous Rogan experience". That's what they said in their first season. In their second season they say at the beginning of every show that they now have over 140 hours of Rogan experience. This makes them pretty well-informed.
 
Vixen said:
It is not standard. Like I said. If you are unsure, you can Google it for yourself.
Click to expand...
I did, and found the document I linked to, which cites the Sentencing Act 2020, s.30, which has been in force since 1st December 2020, and says:
If the offender is aged 18 or over, the court must obtain and consider a pre-sentence report before forming the opinion unless, in the circumstances of the case, it considers that it is unnecessary to obtain a pre-sentence report.
Click to expand...
Obtaining a pre-sentence report is clearly standard procedure.

Do you have any information about this "Special Report", produced by social workers, that you say was ordered in this case?

[edited to correct date]
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
So she incited people to start doing things they were already doing? You've been reading Philip K. Dick's "The Minority Report" haven't you?:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
If she was urging them on to do things they were already doing then that surely compounds her culpability. There is no way for her to claim she had no idea what could happen.
 
Mojo said:
I did, and found the document I linked to, which cites the Sentencing Act 2020, s.30, which has been in force since 1st December 2020, and says:

Obtaining a pre-sentence report is clearly standard procedure.

Do you have any information about this "Special Report", produced by social workers, that you say was ordered in this case?

[edited to correct date]
Click to expand...
It is not my problem you did not follow the case at the time. A special report was ordered. It is not done as a matter of course when people plead guilty to a crime. Edited: maybe it is unkind of me to expect others to be on the same level of awareness. Connolly was a 'special report' case because she had lost a child some years before. In any case Connolly has nothing whatsoever to do with 'free speech'.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is not my problem you did not follow the case at the time. A special report was ordered. It is not done as a matter of course when people plead guilty to a crime. Edited: maybe it is unkind of me to expect others to be on the same level of awareness. Connolly was a 'special report' case because she had lost a child some years before. In any case Connolly has nothing whatsoever to do with 'free speech'.
Click to expand...
You made the claim about a special report, there has been no evidence that the special report exists. You are making it up.
 
psionl0 said:
I had a look at the tweet:

If this rises to the level of "incitement" then it is a pretty low bar.
Click to expand...
The incitement was in knowingly falsely - or it should have been known by a reasonable person- claiming the perp who killed three little girls at a dance class was an Islamist asylum seeker and using the opportunity to encourage public disorder. This might seem minor to those who reduce it down to 'writing a tweet' but sovereign states all over the world have always been utterly terrified of public disorder and people taking to the streets to rise up against the state. So, the persons who got harsh sentences after the 2011 riots and looting wasn't because they nicked a pair of adidas trainers from a shop with smashed windows, it was because mass rioting shakes the foundations of those in power. So the far right (or far left) persons constantly looking for opportunities to seize power, as it were, will have the law come down heavily as soon as they succeed in getting people to lob bricks and mortar at the police, the very heart of the state itself. Rioting, insurrection and treason have always been considered some of the most serious of crimes. Connolly herself admitted she wanted a riot because she was a racist.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
It does. A judge judged that it does. When said during a riot where people are literally trying to set fire to hotels full of immigrants, it is incitement.
Click to expand...
That just says that the intent was not clear enough and it needed somebody to declare it to be incitement.

I would have thought the bar would be when it encourages people who otherwise would not do so to set fire to hotels. If it only encourages arsonists then any non-positive message could be labeled "incitement".
 
psionl0 said:
I had a look at the tweet:

If this rises to the level of "incitement" then it is a pretty low bar.
Click to expand...
Connolly believes the tweet was incitement to violence and racially motivated. I do consider the person who tweeted something to know their own mind better than any of us. Indeed that she deleted it after a few hours when she realised what she had done also supports her view of her tweet.
angrysoba said:
smartcooky ignored the actual facts of the case? What of it? When a court case is not going the way that you want it to, should you not appeal to the laws of a completely different jurisdiction or perhaps even declare yourself a freeman on the land!

Also, ironically, this new distraction somewhat undercuts a previous distraction, which was Alaa Abdel Fattah's tweets which would also be protected under Brandenburg. Perhaps smartcooky has a two-tier application of Brandenburg which means Connolly's tweets, while well-known and reported to the police about disturbances happening in the moment in the UK, are somehow protected, but Alaa Abdel Fattah's tweets written outside the UK about non-UK citizens and dug up much later, are not protected by Brandenburg for reas... oh look a squirrel!
Click to expand...
As you say his tweets were apparently posted when he was neither a British citizen nor in the UK, so they would not have fallen under any breach of UK law when they were posted. There would also be a case to be made that they were posted before the rightwing government passed legislation to make such tweets as Connolly's a "enhanced" criminal matter.

I dont know the actual process of nationalisation back then, it may have been that the entirely of social media was not considered - the law and processes always lag when technology changes the landscape - when the rightwing government granted him citizenship. Given what we now know I wouldn't support him being granted British citizenship however back then I suspect he passed all the appropriate checks the rightwing government had in place so I don't think there is really any fault to be laid at the feet of the rightwing government of the time.
 
psionl0 said:
That just says that the intent was not clear enough and
it needed somebody to declare it to be incitement.
I would have thought the bar would be when it encourages people who otherwise would not do so to set fire to hotels. If it only encourages arsonists then any non-positive message could be labeled "incitement".
Click to expand...
Connolly did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom