doctor jambo Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, Smithee said: Ok, then that is a flaw, we then come down to how this particular guy judges the situation Not really a flaw YOu have no absolute right in Scotland to a jury you cannot request one You have the right to appeal the verdict if they is a flaw in application of the law "an error in law" this stops every nugget trying to get off by asking for a jury trial- remember Richard Madeley with his shop lifting...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, Smithee said: Ok, then that is a flaw, we then come down to how this particular guy judges the situation Then surely that is a flaw full stop with any Sheriff case that is judged by one person? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff_court Perhaps it is a summary offence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 Juries are only for high court cases. People that think they turn out for every parking ticket fine and small claims court case watch too much TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, Cade said: Juries are only for high court cases. People that think they turn out for every parking ticket fine and small claims court case watch too much TV. Sheriff courts can have a jury. Depends on the offence, whether solemn or summary proceedings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 1 hour ago, doctor jambo said: Not really a flaw YOu have no absolute right in Scotland to a jury you cannot request one You have the right to appeal the verdict if they is a flaw in application of the law "an error in law" this stops every nugget trying to get off by asking for a jury trial- remember Richard Madeley with his shop lifting...... In a case like this there's a subjective judgement to be made, it isn't as simple as "did he steal the car?" Our unwritten constitution consists of laws and precedents, and I can't help thinking that a precedent like this one being set maybe requires more than one man deciding. Remember when Judy got them out? 1 hour ago, Boris said: Then surely that is a flaw full stop with any Sheriff case that is judged by one person? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff_court Perhaps it is a summary offence? Perhaps, I try not to get in too far when I'm out of my depth as I am with the judicial system, but as above, even though this is fairly small time it seems like a very important case in terms of precedent and subjective judgement and it doesn't seem right to me that one man decides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 8 minutes ago, Smithee said: Even though this is fairly small time it seems like a very important case in terms of precedent and subjective judgement and it doesn't seem right to me that one man decides. If the Scottish legal system is anything like the American one as regards precedent, none has been made here for exactly the reason you say. This is one sheriff in one lower courtroom in Scotland. He doesn't have the power to set precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) One ***** gets a fine for making nazi jokes about gassing jews on a public platform. Morons like Tommy Robinson start bleating about the nanny state, erosion of free speech, thought police and 1984. Edited April 24, 2018 by Cade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 6 hours ago, Boris said: Sheriff courts can have a jury. Depends on the offence, whether solemn or summary proceedings. Shows how small scale this trial was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 5 hours ago, Justin Z said: If the Scottish legal system is anything like the American one as regards precedent, none has been made here for exactly the reason you say. This is one sheriff in one lower courtroom in Scotland. He doesn't have the power to set precedent. This is why I stay out of judiciary debates, clueless! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 The guy is a total ****ing idiotic weirdo. End of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 On 24/04/2018 at 12:59, Restonbabe said: No there wasnt a complaint made against him. If you want to deem police Scotland ( the state) being the complainer then your comments are justified. It was the state went after him. Not the Joe public. I think that is dangerous to the society we live in. A judge cannot say what I'd deemed offensive or not. As for your edl remarks. He left 5 years ago. And had went to prison because of the state forced him too after activity campaigns against Muslim rape gangs. He knows better than most what the full power of the law can do to someone. Well, they can actually. And Robinson is a reptile, on a number of levels in a number of ways. He is however very good at making not very bright people think he is some sort of hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restonbabe Posted April 26, 2018 Author Share Posted April 26, 2018 On 4/24/2018 at 13:32, JamboX2 said: All criminal actions are - for court - the PF (the crown) against a law breaker. But a crime has to be brought to the Police by someone, found to be a crime and if necessary prosecuted. The state has done it's job. The case is not saying it is universally offensive. It's saying some in the community were offended beyond what is reasonable and therefore this guy has been sanctioned with a fine and a criminal offence. Everything that should've happened did. People do realise this guy was saying something most other folk would find reprehensible repeatedly and has offended people in the process? This isn't Mandela's demands for equality being prevented from being aired. Doesn't change his political views. As Boris said his crime was mortgage fraud. Hardly a freedom fighter. What your saying then is that because of someone ( in the community or not) being offended.(regardless of the context) then criminal charges should be brought upon them by the state? As for others saying Stephen Lennon (Tommy Robinson) was done for mortgage fraud. Go and watch his you tube speech at Oxford University and his York talk on the Oxford speech he was supposed to give because the state prevented him From doing so. Then watch the state harassing him in Cambridge in front of his children and tell me that they don't have an agenda. Please don't form a character opnion on someone that you know nothing about. It doesn't matter what side you fall on regarding the outcome of this trial. It sets a dangerous president for every citizen of Britian, no one should be prosecuted for a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, Restonbabe said: What your saying then is that because of someone ( in the community or not) being offended.(regardless of the context) then criminal charges should be brought upon them by the state? No. I'm saying all crimes are prosecuted by the state. From burglary to homicide. This was a criminal law. So he's been prosecuted by the state. It's nothing to worry about. 4 minutes ago, Restonbabe said: As for others saying Stephen Lennon (Tommy Robinson) was done for mortgage fraud. Go and watch his you tube speech at Oxford University and his York talk on the Oxford speech he was supposed to give because the state prevented him From doing so. Then watch the state harassing him in Cambridge in front of his children and tell me that they don't have an agenda. But he was done for fraud. So I don't see any conspiracy. 4 minutes ago, Restonbabe said: Please don't form a character opnion on someone that you know nothing about. In Robinson's case I'll judge him by gis words. And frankly he's a purveyor of hate. 4 minutes ago, Restonbabe said: It doesn't matter what side you fall on regarding the outcome of this trial. It sets a dangerous president for every citizen of Britian, no one should be prosecuted for a joke. It does noting dangerous. But they should if they are engaging in something that is deemed unacceptable under the law. This is NOT what YOU deem offensive. This is a crime complained about to the authorities by those who were offended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 1 hour ago, JamboX2 said: No. I'm saying all crimes are prosecuted by the state. From burglary to homicide. This was a criminal law. So he's been prosecuted by the state. It's nothing to worry about. Yeah, I don't understand what the confusion is with your statements on this. I've already identified as a source of my personal misgiving, that it's a criminal as opposed to civil matter at all. This Robinson dude sounds like a complete nob who has been happy to break actual, substantive laws and ought to have received punishment for it. Not just for mortgage fraud, involving helping several others also do it, but travelling on a fake passport? Wtf is that about!? I'm surprised anyone is defending him. Oh wait, no I'm not. He equates the worst of the Islamists with Muslims as a whole. Of course people latch onto this. "Grooming gangs", ffs. This is exactly the sort of shit perpetrated against Black people in the 20th century in the USA, pulled out of racist's asses, that led to the "War on Drugs". Needed to protect "our white women" from their salacious advances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff the Mince Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 2 hours ago, Restonbabe said: What your saying then is that because of someone ( in the community or not) being offended.(regardless of the context) then criminal charges should be brought upon them by the state? As for others saying Stephen Lennon (Tommy Robinson) was done for mortgage fraud. Go and watch his you tube speech at Oxford University and his York talk on the Oxford speech he was supposed to give because the state prevented him From doing so. Then watch the state harassing him in Cambridge in front of his children and tell me that they don't have an agenda. Please don't form a character opnion on someone that you know nothing about. It doesn't matter what side you fall on regarding the outcome of this trial. It sets a dangerous president for every citizen of Britian, no one should be prosecuted for a joke. He was convicted of Mortgage Fraud and was a member of the BNP His EDL followers are mainly kunckle dragging bigots who like a poster said are easily led due use to them being thick . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Just reading this thread now. Justin Z, you're pretty confident that the American law on Freedom of Speech is the correct one. Can you explain why you think so? Freedom of speech, as a right, is more important in terms of criticising the state and those in power in my mind. The idea you can say what you like regardless of the content isn't something humans have the right to imo. People think they are entitled to lot these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 4 hours ago, Restonbabe said: What your saying then is that because of someone ( in the community or not) being offended.(regardless of the context) then criminal charges should be brought upon them by the state? As for others saying Stephen Lennon (Tommy Robinson) was done for mortgage fraud. Go and watch his you tube speech at Oxford University and his York talk on the Oxford speech he was supposed to give because the state prevented him From doing so. Then watch the state harassing him in Cambridge in front of his children and tell me that they don't have an agenda. Please don't form a character opnion on someone that you know nothing about. It doesn't matter what side you fall on regarding the outcome of this trial. It sets a dangerous president for every citizen of Britian, no one should be prosecuted for a joke. I think it sets a GREAT precedent for the public It reassures us that the courts (NOT the state- that is separate) are protecting us from extremist bammers and that the courts protect our kids from typing "funny pug videos" into youtube and being confronted by wallopers like dankula shouting "gas the Jews" , which could cause the more immature viewers to repeat what he has said/done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 3 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said: Just reading this thread now. Justin Z, you're pretty confident that the American law on Freedom of Speech is the correct one. Can you explain why you think so? Freedom of speech, as a right, is more important in terms of criticising the state and those in power in my mind. The idea you can say what you like regardless of the content isn't something humans have the right to imo. People think they are entitled to lot these days. Heya Al. I kind of already tried to do that earlier, when I noted that anytime you place a limit on speech you're giving a power to the government to decide what is and isn't acceptable to say or express, a power which is easily abused. I certainly agree with you that the freedom to criticise those in power is an absolute cornerstone of the more general right to free speech everyone ought to have, but that's just the point--if you start giving the government the power to determine what criticisms are fair, it is necessarily going to start protecting itself too. Tasteless or not, you can view the Dankula case this way. The government has decided it's not okay to make light of the Holocaust in certain ways. Decent people wouldn't make light of the Holocaust at all, so that doesn't really matter to us. But should it be illegal to make light of it, as opposed to simply tasteless, deplorable, or maybe even civilly actionable if the speech rose to the level of what Alex Jones has done to the Sandy Hook parents? I argue no, for the reasons I've already given above. But maybe I'm just doing a poor job explaining my position because it's my own default starting point. Was there some other idea as regards speech that you wanted to kick around, for the sake of clarity? And yes, for what it's worth, I don't agree that you ought to be able to say absolutely anything you like regardless of the content, without consequence of some sort. I just have a much narrower idea of where those limits start and end than the general European consensus, especially as it relates to criminalisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, doctor jambo said: I think it sets a GREAT precedent for the public It reassures us that the courts (NOT the state- that is separate) are protecting us from extremist bammers and that the courts protect our kids from typing "funny pug videos" into youtube and being confronted by wallopers like dankula shouting "gas the Jews" , which could cause the more immature viewers to repeat what he has said/done The courts are absolutely not separate from the state. They are a branch of the state, full stop. They serve to make decisions on when and where the state may be permitted to impinge upon an individual's most basic freedoms, including the freedom not to be incarcerated or to have one's property taken by the state (i.e. being made to pay a fine). That a separate branch than those who make the laws carries out judgement on them is a good thing, but it absolutely does not make the judiciary not a part of the state itself. Edited April 26, 2018 by Justin Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpruceBringsteen Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 8 hours ago, Restonbabe said: What your saying then is that because of someone ( in the community or not) being offended.(regardless of the context) then criminal charges should be brought upon them by the state? As for others saying Stephen Lennon (Tommy Robinson) was done for mortgage fraud. Go and watch his you tube speech at Oxford University and his York talk on the Oxford speech he was supposed to give because the state prevented him From doing so. Then watch the state harassing him in Cambridge in front of his children and tell me that they don't have an agenda. Please don't form a character opnion on someone that you know nothing about. It doesn't matter what side you fall on regarding the outcome of this trial. It sets a dangerous president for every citizen of Britian, no one should be prosecuted for a joke. Robinson is a virulent rodent, as is anyone who associates, agrees or sympathises with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_hmfc Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) Someone made a comparison that if it is just a joke and "banter", and if you'd need to watch what you say in a football stadium (for example), what should be done with this? (I'm not making a point, I'm just wondering on opinions.) Edited April 30, 2018 by peter_hmfc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.