• 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

theprestige said:
Dunno how it is in the UK, but in the US the trial is a culmination of a series of judicial proceedings. A judge is involved from the very beginning, from the initial arraignment all the way to trial and sentencing.

Who presides over pretrial court proceedings in the UK? An effigy of Guy Fawkes?
Click to expand...
In England and Wales there's a "Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing" before trial, but I don't think that's a stage at which the judge would be asking for any reports, unless perhaps there was a question of whether the defendant was competent to stand trial, which doesn't seem to have been the case here.
 
Mojo said:
In England and Wales there's a "Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing" before trial, but I don't think that's a stage at which the judge would be asking for any reports, unless perhaps there was a question of whether the defendant was competent to stand trial, which doesn't seem to have been the case here.
Click to expand...
Yes, those deal with the likes of trial dates not evidential matters and the like as in some USA states. The nearest I can find for E&W is if there is an issue of competency, but Vixen ruled out that in her description of her capitalised "Special Report".

There simply wasn't any special report, capitalised or not, Vixen made it up.
 
I'll just leave this here for the usual suspects who have the courage to watch (if there are any left).

I'm not posting a summary or a transcript because it would be a waste of my time. Our usual suspects either won't read it anyway, or they will accuse me of being paid by the word... or something.

Watch it and you might learn the deeply concerning truth behind the politically motivated persecution of Lucy Connolly, the laws that were broken by the police themselves, the withholding of contextual evidence, and the REAL reason why she pleaded guilty, as well as the fact that she regrets doing so.... or don't watch it and remain ignorant. I don't care either way.

 
"I've held my nose long enough to come among you and stoop to providing a link to some propaganda that argues my point for me, on the off chance that any of you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ aren't too ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ to look at it"

"Why are you talking like that?"

"I didn't want to!! You guys were ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ first! For years, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊! Would YOU keep speaking civilly to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊?"

"...Is... is this a science experiment?"
 
Yeah, that channel looks totally legit and unbiased.

That's sarcasm.

I'm scrolling through the channel and looking at the video titles. He's platforming Andrew Tate and David Icke, and wow he really loves child rapist and sex trafficker Andrew Tate. Lots of stuff there from him. There's something on the JFK conspiracy theory, and it's absolutely not on the side of debunking it (Mafia Boss Reveals Truth!!!). He appears to be a big fan of Nigel Farage and oh look, Joe Rogan. Who could have predicted that? His other channels are all about money scams.

Yeah I'm not going to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ watch that video. It's deeeep in the radical far right information bubble. Very interesting that @smartcooky chose to use it as his evidence.
 
Darat said:
Yes, those deal with the likes of trial dates not evidential matters and the like as in some USA states. The nearest I can find for E&W is if there is an issue of competency, but Vixen ruled out that in her description of her capitalised "Special Report".
Click to expand...
Okay, so who does preside over the arraignment? The pretrial conferences? The bond hearing? The guilty plea, if one is to be made? The various motion hearings?

I don't believe UK court cases go straight to trial, without several preliminary hearings to make sure both sides are doing what the need to do, in order to have a fair trial.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Bond hearing?
Click to expand...
Y'all call it release on bail. In the US, such a release is subject to certain conditions.

Also in the US, the conditions are imposed by a judge, with input from both parties. Likewise, alleged violations of the conditions are reviewed by a judge.

Who imposes these conditions in the UK, if not a judge? Who considers alleged violations, if not a judge?
 
Most suspects are released on police bail, no money involved.

Police can hold people for a certain amount of time, if they want to hold for longer for questioning they can ask a judge.
If they are charged and brought before the magistrates ( always the first stop) they can be remanded to be locked up until the trial if there's a risk of absconding or violence.
For some charges there is automatic remand.
 
Also, I love the idea that you have to be brave to sit through yet another hour of video propaganda, instead of having better things to do with your time.

Look, we have all heard the grievance-mongering from Lucy Connolly and her supporters numerous times. Most people agree that the sentence was excessive while also agreeing that telling people to burn down hotels full of migrants was not protected speech, and that the Brandenburg ruling does not apply in UK courts.
 
angrysoba said:
Most people agree that the sentence was excessive while also agreeing that telling people to burn down hotels full of migrants was not protected speech
Click to expand...
She did not "tell" anybody anything. She said that they could burn down the hotels for all she cared.

But it explains her sentence. The judge obviously sentenced her on the same strawman that you used.
 
psionl0 said:
She did not "tell" anybody anything. She said that they could burn down the hotels for all she cared.

But it explains her sentence. The judge obviously sentenced her on the same strawman that you used.
Click to expand...
She used the imperative which is often taken to be a command. And it’s not a strawman because she herself pleaded guilty to it. So instead of me replacing one argument with another, it is you who is doing that.
 
I suggest you read the Sentencing Remarks by the sentencing judge. PDF here.

This will disabuse you of your total misunderstanding of the charge she pled to and was found guilty of.
In particular, points, 1, 5 and 9.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
She pleaded guilty to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing “threatening or abusive” written material on X. She did not plead guilty to "telling people to burn down hotels full of migrants".
Click to expand...
As I said, she agreed that the tweet was not protected speech, and in that tweet she did indeed urge the burning of hotels full of migrants.

1767683549201.png
 
psionl0 said:
She did not "tell" anybody anything. She said that they could burn down the hotels for all she cared.

But it explains her sentence. The judge obviously sentenced her on the same strawman that you used.
Click to expand...
No he sentenced her on her plea, she said she did what she was accused of, she admitted what her intent was, there was no straw man in the charges against her, as ever I do tend to believe people know their own mind and intentions. She only appealed against her sentence because she agreed she'd committed the crime, but the sentence was too harsh.

ETA: Ninja'd
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
A guilty plea only means that the accused can not afford to defend the case or believes that the odds against a not-guilty verdict are too great.
Click to expand...
You have chosen the nuclear option: the entire justice system is a sham because all people hauled before a judge will have to plead guilty in the face of their overwhelming guilt.
 
psionl0 said:
A guilty plea only means that the accused can not afford to defend the case or believes that the odds against a not-guilty verdict are too great.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps, and I know this is a radical idea, the accused know they are guilty?

Is there any evidence that legal fees were beyond her means? We do have (granted gutted by the last rightwing governments) legal aid in the UK, plus I see her appeal was paid for by a free speech organisation so the evidence we have -so far- is that legal fees were not an issue
 
psionl0 said:
A guilty plea only means that the accused can not afford to defend the case or believes that the odds against a not-guilty verdict are too great.
Click to expand...
Bull ◊◊◊◊. She only pled guilty in order to retain a discount on her sentence.

She could certainly afford to defend her case, evidenced by the court records in this case.
She engaged a solicitor for the initial trial and a barrister for the appeal.

Also, a GoFundMe her appeal campaign raised over £100,000 for her initial defence and her appeal was subsequently funded by the Free Speech Union to the tune of £150,000.

Only cost her time served.
 
Last edited:
And this was not a complex case that would have required months of discovery, expert witnesses and so on. Indeed probably would only have a couple of people and perhaps Connolly on the stand. Prosecution would quickly establish that it was posted by her, if she wanted to testify she could, the prosecution would then show the other tweets that supported what the prosecution said her intent was. Then over to the judge or jury for a decision.
 
Darat said:
And this was not a complex case that would have required months of discovery, expert witnesses and so on. Indeed probably would only have a couple of people and perhaps Connolly on the stand. Prosecution would quickly establish that it was posted by her, if she wanted to testify she could, the prosecution would then show the other tweets that supported what the prosecution said her intent was. Then over to the judge or jury for a decision.
Click to expand...
If she put in a guilty plea she probably never ever took the stand.
 
I agree with the OP, because there are such shocking scenes as this shown in the Daily Mail.

www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

Shocking moment woman is arrested during live TV interview

Jessica Plichta, who had organized a protest against the Trump administration's capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, was arrested on television.
www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

Oh. That is supposedly the home of the First Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom