Jump to content
Stephane Grappelli

SNP MP Natalie McGarry

Recommended Posts

Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
47 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Got to disagree Dave. Think its a grossly disproportionate sentence that has made sure everyone involved with that case loses. 

 

Reputation? Ruined.

Career? Ruined. 

Family? Ruined. 

 

Not a chance McGarry will ever be in a position of trust again (and rightly so). I think though, too many people are revelling in what is essentially a daughter losing her mother for 18 months. It was non-violent, the risk of re-offending is minimal. A community payback order would have been sufficient alongside a lifetime ban from holding any sort of position of authority in an organisation. 

 

I think the statement from one of the embezzled parties - WomenforIndy(?) was very classy and sums up the what should have been the outcome. 

 

Reading the judge attempting to try and justify a custodial sentence was utterly pathetic. Hopefully this gets fixed on appeal because this isn't the sort of avenue we should be going down in this country. I'd rather we left the yanks to farcical sentences.

Stole from the poor - **** her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OTT
43 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

A load of unmitigated pish.    Here's some reasons why.

 

There must always be a serious deterrent against serious criminality.

 

No remorse whatsoever has been offered.

 

High office bearers must always be held to account to higher standards.

 

There IS a risk of re-offending in this case.   Even with the custodial sentence being served.     There is no evidence to suggest that this woman recognises the seriousness of her crime and is prepared to rehabilitate herself.     Trying to pull a fast one by attempting to withdraw a guilty plea at a late stage,   in conjunction with the highly compelling evidence to support the verdict,   clearly demonstrates her devious character.

 

Sentence is correct.

 

Yeah, failing to admit guilt, or doing so and then trying to withdraw it for whatever reason certainly wasn't smart. 

 

My view is that where possible prison should be reserved for violent offenders. I think what she did was morally reprehensible. Effectively stealing from the poor is some serious next level Cruella de Vil shit. However, no one died. The victims of the crime have issued a statement disagreeing with the severity of the sentence and the biggest loser out of this is her child. 

 

I think the public shame and ridicule alongside putting back into the community she stole from would have served everyone much better than the chosen course of action. It seems all that has been achieved is to make a bad situation worse.

 

As far as making an example goes, you're still talking about someones life and I think someone choosing to use your life to exact a seriously disproportionate sentence to send a message is pretty ridiculous. If anyone wants to talk about the ideals of law then I'd suggest it should rise above that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
16 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Yeah, failing to admit guilt, or doing so and then trying to withdraw it for whatever reason certainly wasn't smart. 

 

My view is that where possible prison should be reserved for violent offenders. I think what she did was morally reprehensible. Effectively stealing from the poor is some serious next level Cruella de Vil shit. However, no one died. The victims of the crime have issued a statement disagreeing with the severity of the sentence and the biggest loser out of this is her child. 

 

I think the public shame and ridicule alongside putting back into the community she stole from would have served everyone much better than the chosen course of action. It seems all that has been achieved is to make a bad situation worse.

 

As far as making an example goes, you're still talking about someones life and I think someone choosing to use your life to exact a seriously disproportionate sentence to send a message is pretty ridiculous. If anyone wants to talk about the ideals of law then I'd suggest it should rise above that. 

 

Equality in society = equality in the eyes of the law.    Leniency based on sexuality and even motherhood is a redundant concept.    Albeit sympathy for the kid.

 

Lenient sentencing based on the notion of violence / non violent crimes is a naive and dangerous path for society.    The criminal justice system already has a tried and trusted test of what constitutes a custodial crime and it is applied with great care and for good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
11 hours ago, Zico said:

They all have editorial agendas. The idea that they’re all out to get the SNP is, frankly, ridiculous. 

If the msm supported independence we would be independent. It's that simple. It supports either the status quo or worse, all powers Westminster. It's not ridiculous at all, whatsoever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OTT
26 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Equality in society = equality in the eyes of the law.    Leniency based on sexuality and even motherhood is a redundant concept.    Albeit sympathy for the kid.

 

Lenient sentencing based on the notion of violence / non violent crimes is a naive and dangerous path for society.    The criminal justice system already has a tried and trusted test of what constitutes a custodial crime and it is applied with great care and for good reason.

 

Yeah, I understand that. The law shouldn't offer preferential treatment based on gender. This actually runs contrary to my argument but i'm pretty sure its been proven like for like crimes have radically different sentencing results based on gender (student/teacher molestation is definitely one).

 

My point though, isn't to do with gender, its the punitive impact of breaking up a family. I don't believe that the consequences for the family are outweighed by the severity of the crime. It seems grossly disproportionate. If the family is already in financial difficulties, removing half the earning potential from the house will negatively impact the children. Thats a fact. Another point to consider is the emotional trauma that the child will no doubt suffer as a result of having her mother taken away. I don't think its naive to want the court to consider the ramifications of taking such a hardline approach to an offence that doesn't necessitate prison time. 

 

It seems to me that the decision to impose a custodial sentence despite the nonviolent nature of the crime stems from a failure to accept guilt (although pleaded guilty, then attempted to withdraw that... what a cluster**** that is. Would like to know why tbh) and then attempting to have the judge removed. I find it hard to believe a judge would offer any leniency where their competence and impartiality have been questioned, which ironically suggests that there is fair argument at that moment to then question their impartiality. There was an opportunity to go down a far better restorative path here and the judge elected not to. I don't think thats right, and I do think it should be questioned. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jumpship
6 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Yeah, I understand that. The law shouldn't offer preferential treatment based on gender. This actually runs contrary to my argument but i'm pretty sure its been proven like for like crimes have radically different sentencing results based on gender (student/teacher molestation is definitely one).

 

My point though, isn't to do with gender, its the punitive impact of breaking up a family. I don't believe that the consequences for the family are outweighed by the severity of the crime. It seems grossly disproportionate. If the family is already in financial difficulties, removing half the earning potential from the house will negatively impact the children. Thats a fact. Another point to consider is the emotional trauma that the child will no doubt suffer as a result of having her mother taken away. I don't think its naive to want the court to consider the ramifications of taking such a hardline approach to an offence that doesn't necessitate prison time. 

 

It seems to me that the decision to impose a custodial sentence despite the nonviolent nature of the crime stems from a failure to accept guilt (although pleaded guilty, then attempted to withdraw that... what a cluster**** that is. Would like to know why tbh) and then attempting to have the judge removed. I find it hard to believe a judge would offer any leniency where their competence and impartiality have been questioned, which ironically suggests that there is fair argument at that moment to then question their impartiality. There was an opportunity to go down a far better restorative path here and the judge elected not to. I don't think thats right, and I do think it should be questioned. 

 

 

 

 

I've got a strong feeling that mental health has played a big part in this. 

 

The fact that she has shown no guilt or remorse about this. 

 

I got slated on Twitter for suggesting this, but through my work I've seen many individuals go to jail who have severe mental health issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OTT
2 minutes ago, jumpship said:

 

 

I've got a strong feeling that mental health has played a big part in this. 

 

The fact that she has shown no guilt or remorse about this. 

 

I got slated on Twitter for suggesting this, but through my work I've seen many individuals go to jail who have severe mental health issues. 

 

Yeah I remember reading that she had tried to put mental health forward as mitigation. 

 

In a time where mental health is being spoken about as something we need to take seriously, I think the sheriff should hang his head in shame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
millerjames398
6 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Boy was trying to cram in as much Nat King before she went off grid?

If i was in his shoes....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
1 hour ago, Roxy Hearts said:

If the msm supported independence we would be independent. It's that simple. It supports either the status quo or worse, all powers Westminster. It's not ridiculous at all, whatsoever!

 

That might be in your mind.

 

So people voting No were fooled but Yes voters are fully independent thinking? 

 

Issues with currency and the economy remain unresolved no matter the views of the BBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
24 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

That might be in your mind.

 

So people voting No were fooled but Yes voters are fully independent thinking? 

 

Issues with currency and the economy remain unresolved no matter the views of the BBC

The narrative would change and a more positive prospectus would be made. 

 

Currency? Sterling, euro, chocolate buttons it's all academic. Our economy would do just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zico
2 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

If the msm supported independence we would be independent. It's that simple. It supports either the status quo or worse, all powers Westminster. It's not ridiculous at all, whatsoever!

Eh, OK mate - I’ll leave you to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
19 minutes ago, Zico said:

Eh, OK mate - I’ll leave you to that. 

Are you telling me that the media is not influential? How do you think people make their minds up? Studying party manifestos? People believed the vow, we can't use sterling, the oil has run out, no pensions etc. just absolute downright lies. All just scare stories. Propaganda from the British state is funny for those who see through it and it's despairing to know some believe it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pablo

A tasty wee aperitif ahead of finding out who knew what and when, after the Salmond rape inquiries. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
16 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Equality in society = equality in the eyes of the law.    Leniency based on sexuality and even motherhood is a redundant concept.    Albeit sympathy for the kid.

 

Lenient sentencing based on the notion of violence / non violent crimes is a naive and dangerous path for society.    The criminal justice system already has a tried and trusted test of what constitutes a custodial crime and it is applied with great care and for good reason.

Women want equality when it suits to get equal pay. They don’t like the rest of what it entails. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
2 hours ago, pablo said:

A tasty wee aperitif ahead of finding out who knew what and when, after the Salmond rape inquiries. 

 

If he's guilty he should get everything that's coming to him. Shame really as he was the best politician in these Isles in my lifetime. Took our country to the brink of independence and a better way of governing ourselves. The media must be sharpening their knives and have about a million headlines and substories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
4 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

If he's guilty he should get everything that's coming to him. Shame really as he was the best politician in these Isles in my lifetime. Took our country to the brink of independence and a better way of governing ourselves. The media must be sharpening their knives and have about a million headlines and substories.

I used to think that too. Salmond lost something in the indyref for me. I don’t like politicians per se I think they’re all the same regardless of party but I did used to like Salmond. He always seemed really sharp and witty and really turned me on to independence. 

I agree the MSM have totally got it in for anybody of SNP leaning, they make mountains out of molehills but if he’s guilty of the things he’s accused of though I hope he rots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
42 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I used to think that too. Salmond lost something in the indyref for me. I don’t like politicians per se I think they’re all the same regardless of party but I did used to like Salmond. He always seemed really sharp and witty and really turned me on to independence. 

I agree the MSM have totally got it in for anybody of SNP leaning, they make mountains out of molehills but if he’s guilty of the things he’s accused of though I hope he rots. 

It was Salmond that turned me to independence too and that inhumane Thatcher. I agree he lost something during the indyref, probably the currency nonsense. I also liked John Smith and thought he would have made a great prime minister and was probably the last unionist politician I liked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
18 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Yeah, failing to admit guilt, or doing so and then trying to withdraw it for whatever reason certainly wasn't smart. 

 

My view is that where possible prison should be reserved for violent offenders. I think what she did was morally reprehensible. Effectively stealing from the poor is some serious next level Cruella de Vil shit. However, no one died. The victims of the crime have issued a statement disagreeing with the severity of the sentence and the biggest loser out of this is her child. 

 

I think the public shame and ridicule alongside putting back into the community she stole from would have served everyone much better than the chosen course of action. It seems all that has been achieved is to make a bad situation worse.

 

As far as making an example goes, you're still talking about someones life and I think someone choosing to use your life to exact a seriously disproportionate sentence to send a message is pretty ridiculous. If anyone wants to talk about the ideals of law then I'd suggest it should rise above that. 

Good posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jake
18 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Equality in society = equality in the eyes of the law.    Leniency based on sexuality and even motherhood is a redundant concept.    Albeit sympathy for the kid.

 

Lenient sentencing based on the notion of violence / non violent crimes is a naive and dangerous path for society.    The criminal justice system already has a tried and trusted test of what constitutes a custodial crime and it is applied with great care and for good reason.

Good read from both of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
52 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

It was Salmond that turned me to independence too and that inhumane Thatcher. I agree he lost something during the indyref, probably the currency nonsense. I also liked John Smith and thought he would have made a great prime minister and was probably the last unionist politician I liked. 

Mibbe the last labour leader I had any time for tbh. Blair fooled people, me included, but Smith seemed a good man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
6 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Mibbe the last labour leader I had any time for tbh. Blair fooled people, me included, but Smith seemed a good man. 

John Smith was a Goliath of a leader, the greatest PM these kingdoms never had. 

I liked Kinnock as well. Seemed genuine, pity about the too early celebration speech, that blew his PM chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
7 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

John Smith was a Goliath of a leader, the greatest PM these kingdoms never had. 

I liked Kinnock as well. Seemed genuine, pity about the too early celebration speech, that blew his PM chances.

Agree about Kinnock. Seemed a decent man especially with all the Tory crap at the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
18 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Mibbe the last labour leader I had any time for tbh. Blair fooled people, me included, but Smith seemed a good man. 

Blair was too false for me. I was already a supporter of independence so it was all just noise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
29 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Blair was too false for me. I was already a supporter of independence so it was all just noise. 

Blair takes all the credit for the work John Smith did, to make Labour electable. Smith took control of the unions, as well. Labour is now unelectable, and so are the Tories. But hey...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pablo
8 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Blair takes all the credit for the work John Smith did, to make Labour electable. Smith took control of the unions, as well. Labour is now unelectable, and so are the Tories. But hey...

 Lol. It was Norman Tebbit that took control of the Unions. Fantastic politician  who thankfully recognised and understood the threat of the red fascist and acted accordingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
47 minutes ago, pablo said:

 Lol. It was Norman Tebbit that took control of the Unions. Fantastic politician  who thankfully recognised and understood the threat of the red fascist and acted accordingly. 

Can't stand unions but Tebbit was a blue fascist! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
5 hours ago, pablo said:

 Lol. It was Norman Tebbit that took control of the Unions. Fantastic politician  who thankfully recognised and understood the threat of the red fascist and acted accordingly. 

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, pablo said:

 Lol. It was Norman Tebbit that took control of the Unions. Fantastic politician  who thankfully recognised and understood the threat of the red fascist and acted accordingly. 

:rofl: You should post this on the irony thread.

Edited by ri Alban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
7 hours ago, pablo said:

 Lol. It was Norman Tebbit that took control of the Unions. Fantastic politician  who thankfully recognised and understood the threat of the red fascist and acted accordingly. 

Do u think he was in control of Satan's DJ. Being the fantastic Politician who you thankfully recognise as some seer.  Na, they just let that go. Didn't they!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pablo
2 hours ago, Boris said:

:rofl:

:greggy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

Possibly worse than originally thought.

 

 

Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ally Bee

Released after 5 nights. Nice to have friends in high places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maroon Sailor
1 minute ago, Ally Bee said:

Released after 5 nights. Nice to have friends in high places.

 

What a farce !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
3 minutes ago, Ally Bee said:

Released after 5 nights. Nice to have friends in high places.

 

Because of appealing 

 

Not sure based on what 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OTT
41 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Because of appealing 

 

Not sure based on what 

 

Defection legal representation. Not sure what thats going to do besides kick the sentence down the road. Blaming the lawyer for poor advice doesn't change any of the evidence. Might go some way to explain the refusal to admit guilt? Shambles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo_Gaz

Tip of the iceberg. Wonder who she's got the dirt on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

If there's a plea against a miscarriage of justice based on defective legal advice,   the only thing certain is that this was the plan from the outset.       She has no defence against the charges,   she never did have any defence.     The best chance is to slip through the net on a technicality.     This is what's happening.     Deliberately collude with the lawyers to demonstrate some kind of defective advice... enter a guilty plea... lay the groundwork to claim innocence by seeming to withdraw the guilty plea... claim defective advice to infer that the lawyers insisted on the guilty plea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

If there's a plea against a miscarriage of justice based on defective legal advice,   the only thing certain is that this was the plan from the outset.       She has no defence against the charges,   she never did have any defence.     The best chance is to slip through the net on a technicality.     This is what's happening.     Deliberately collude with the lawyers to demonstrate some kind of defective advice... enter a guilty plea... lay the groundwork to claim innocence by seeming to withdraw the guilty plea... claim defective advice to infer that the lawyers insisted on the guilty plea.

 

Would be a new trial then presumably. 

 

Comments since trial of those involved suggest offences were worse than what she was charged with i.e. stole more money. 

Edited by Mikey1874

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Would be a new trial then presumably. 

 

Comments since trial of those involved suggsst offences were worse than what she was charged with i.e. stole more money. 

 

Maybe some kind of belief that any retrial can be shown to be fundamentally prejudiced via widespead publicity,   etc?      

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh

Maybe Krankie will give her pal a "Presidential Pardon"! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN

Stinks of Political interference. Nailed on that the sex pest will never do time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
2 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

Stinks of Political interference. Nailed on that the sex pest will never do time now.

 

:cornette:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
10 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

:cornette:

What are you trying to say? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
2 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

What are you trying to say? 

 

You made a bizarre and wholly ignorant observation regarding supposed political interference in the McGarry appeal against her conviction.    You deserved a Cornette.    Here's a bonus one.

 

:cornette:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You made a bizarre and wholly ignorant observation regarding supposed political interference in the McGarry appeal against her conviction.    You deserved a Cornette.    Here's a bonus one.

 

:cornette:

I use words mate not childish pictures. I have never heard of anyone being freed pending a potential appeal. Your naivety is astounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
3 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Maybe Krankie will give her pal a "Presidential Pardon"! 

 

image.png.25b8eb6313181ad314289a0a0e47ddb7.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
2 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

I use words mate not childish pictures. I have never heard of anyone being freed pending a potential appeal. Your naivety is astounding.

 

Nah.   What's astounding is that you've made your ludicrous observation based on never having heard of someone being bailed pending a decision of an appeal being allowed.      The belief that the judiciary can be subject to inappropriate political interference is hopelessly naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Nah.   What's astounding is that you've made your ludicrous observation based on never having heard of someone being bailed pending a decision of an appeal being allowed.      The belief that the judiciary can be subject to inappropriate political interference is hopelessly naive.

You're in a bad mood mate. Nobody gets out on a potential. Scottish politicians lean on the judiciary like all others. Go back to bed, go to sleep and get up again. You might start to see reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
6 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

You're in a bad mood mate. Nobody gets out on a potential. Scottish politicians lean on the judiciary like all others. Go back to bed, go to sleep and get up again. You might start to see reason

 

:cornette:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
2 hours ago, SE16 3LN said:

You're in a bad mood mate. Nobody gets out on a potential. Scottish politicians lean on the judiciary like all others. Go back to bed, go to sleep and get up again. You might start to see reason

We know how corrupt the UK is so maybe that's clouding your judgement. Any excuse to bash......well you know the rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...