• 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

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.
 
Interesting article about how the US government has banned certain words; accessibility, advocacy, barriers, biases, breastfeeding, climate change, disability, diversity, ethnicity, equity, female, gender, gender-affirming care, health disparity, immigrants, inclusion, mental health, minority, pregnant people, race, racism, sex, socioeconomic, systemic, underserved, victim, vulnerable populations, women, from US in federal documents.

Yet it is the UK that the US government accuses of restricting free speach.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom