European News and Poland Thread - part 4

The law. It's one of the fairest legal systems in the world and she broke that law.


Whipping up a riot.

Sad to see you reading crap from racists on social media.


What lie?

A single post that was quickly deleted caused the riot? Color me surprised!


telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/21/starmer-knew-about-southport-attacker-terror-links/

So no lie at all then

The PM has been clear that he was aware of that turd's links. He does however have to follow the law as we all do and, as you know, it is illegal to make public statements that may affect the outcome of a jury trial.


She was urging a mob to attack unarmed people. That is a crime.

Facts? It's illegal to state facts before a jury trial? I confuse.....


Was she? Really? Do you really believe that? When it comes to UK politics you tend to sound a lot like bobko and velund about russia....

BS. A judge can impose a gag order only on the participants - the lawyers, their clients, and the jurors.

Tell us you know nothing about English and Scottish law without telling us you know nothing about English and Scottish law.

It is strictly illegal to publish speculation about guilt or innocence before or during a jury trial or to make comments that could potentially affect a juror's decision. This includes speaking on TV, online and in print. After the jury have reached a verdict it's fine.

In the very rare cases that a politician or other public figure has done this, the trials have been abandoned at great cost and the person who commented has been prosecuted.


See above. This is taken very seriously.


Yes. She was the wife of a local politician and directly encouraged locals to burn down hostels containing families with children. They tried to do this and set fire to fire escapes. She tried to claim in her defence that she was mentally ill and didn't understand what she was saying.

And of course the perpetrator was not an asylum seeker anyway. He was born in Cardiff.

If you're interested, the appeal judge's decision refusing her appeal was published yesterday on Bailli. It should be findable. I'll not post a link since Bailli is fiddly to use.

Few things are legal in gulags.

In the US, where the First Amendment reigns supreme, we, the free people, can comment on anything we damn want.

Us too. However publishing things intended to influence a jury decision is a no no.

If it's just you or me or uncle Tom Cobbley writing things online, it's not usually a problem. If it's a journalist, a politician, a respected scientist, it can lead to a mistrial or a perp going free.

That may happen even here but it doesn't mean that it's illegal to comment on an upcoming or pending trial.

Contempt of court is in a different category and applicable only to the participants.

You can comment, but can't publish until the jury have reached a verdict.

The laws are similar and different. Most countries don't have a jury system. Yours comes from ours which comes from the Anglo-Saxon period, or even before.

I think they introduced the rule due to jury tampering in the nineteenth century.

It's the same in Australia; the press push the boundaries there though and the judge in the mushroom poisoning trial had to issue some severe warnings to journalists.

The tweet was up for about four hours before she deleted it and said protests but not violence were needed. There is no evidence that anyone was motivated to commit any crime because of the tweet.

Anything beyond a reprimand and suspended sentence is ridiculous overreach and intimidation.

And... anger is the perfectly normal reaction to the Southport killings. Anger is a sign of a healthy survival instinct. And given her tragic history (a child killed by NHS neglect) heightened concern for the well-being of children is understandable. Why does the UK want to supress normal human reactions?

Prison for tweets is a totalitarian idea.... several bridges too far.

I am for freedom of speech but not the kind that advocates a felony against specific person or property.

Add to that tweet assurances that what is advocated is perfectly legal and we have problem...

Even if the poster is never found guilty of a crime, the damage may be severe or result in deaths.

Quoting:

On June 17, 2017, Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Roy's death. She cried at the defense table as Judge Lawrence Moniz addressed her.

All she did was text him into a suicide.

Makes no difference to the terrified families locked in the hostel while thugs were setting fire to it.

And her tweet was seen by over 300,000 people. She knew the law; hence deleting it to try and save her arse.


Anger against whom? The frenzied mobs were attacking asylum seekers and a mosque. The perp isn't an asylum seeker and isn't a Muslim; he is Roman Catholic.


If calling for families or anyone else who has never harmed you tonne burnt to death is a "normal human reaction" then I will opt out of that and self identify as a cat.

She knew the law; she was a heavy twitter user who used that platform to whip up riots.

Maybe if the state was doing its job in the first place, there would be no such circumstances that lead to all that.
Instead of blaming the victims, you should blame all those progressive policies and those incompetent and immoral politicians that allowed this to happen. Get it right!

First, you support the idiocy of a disastrous policy of mass migration, condoning illegal migrations in unlimited numbers, creating volatile and unsafe environments for the local population.
Then all voices of those who are protesting are being censored or vilified under the pretext of being racist, fascist and not politically correct.
Then, when some anger kept under the lid for too long bursts into the open, you point a finger at them and one more time vilify them.
The only wrong thing those people did was setting fire to the wrong address.
They should not be directing their anger at paws, ie, illegal migrants, but should target houses and places of those who are making decisions that lead to those events.

Typical mob "justice". And sadly all too human. Getting those dark urges under controle is one achievement of modern states, and not one we should surrender easily.

I recently read a fascinating book called "The man from the train" that puts the theory forward that a serial killer was responsible for many gruesome axe murders in the USA in the early 20th century. The local response to those murders (and the failure of officials to identify the culprit) led to various mob lynching, with the victims often being from minorities.

It is a good thing that those days are behind us and the UK (and other countries) are well-advised to discourage any behaviour that could lead to them resurfacing,

It is a case of the elite and the state failing to do their job properly. Why are you progressives omitting that vital part here?

It's the typeical leftist tactic. Same thing in Ireland when the Algerian (in Ireland for reasons no one could explain) attacked children with a knife and leftists were upset more at those who were upset than at the criminal. Push people until they break and then use their breakdown against them to prevent them from opposing you in the future.

Normal, psychologically healthy people get angry when a mentally ill person who has no business being in the country attacks children with a knife. Progressives' sympathies immediate go to the knifeman and/or imaginary minority victims.

Leftists disrespect all power structures that they don't build and immediately sympathize with anyone who 'challenges' those in any way.

I tend to agree, I despise the woman and her views and would have "stood with" the innocent unarmed people. The reason she received such a harsh sentence was purly political.

The British state has form here, the law is selectively applied for political reasons. Yesterday they charged an Irish pop singer using a british spelling of his name (something that doesnt happen to others if they use the same alphabet) with a terrorism related offence. It should be noted that those who make the laws routinely break them with impunity. British MPs frequently display symbols of terrorist organisations at their rallies something that is supposed to be illegal.

When I say British MPs I mean MPs from Britain not just the bigots who crawl to the British parliament from Ireland. The reason they go there is to authorise the sale of weapons to a terrorist state conducting genocide and using starvation as a weapon of war. They also give political backing to their murder squads unleashed on civilian populations during their illegal invasions. The police force that recommended charges is stuffed full of rapists and racists according to their own accounts. The same police force which covered for the paedophile prince.

With that kind of administration its no surprise that the general population of Britain are easily whipped up by a few tweets.


Thats simply not true. What people want (left right and center) is an even handed application of the law and a review of laws they consider to be bad. If you ignore what people want you get violence or in Britains case self harm in the form of Brexit

Yes. Successive UK governments have ignored (and continue to ignore) majority opinions among the citizenry and the result isn't good (and will get worse).

Similar to the case of Ireland where the government seems maniacally determined to turn ethnic Irish into a minority because.... why exactly?

All sentences are according to sentencing guidelines which are in place long before any trial.

They don't just make it up as they go along, you know...


They would charge according to the name on documents.


1. There is no evidence of wrongdoing. 2. The person who made the accusation was above the age of consent.


And the clowns who don't take up their seats aren't bigots? Are Colum Eastwood and Clare Hanna 'bigots' according to you then?


Except the 'general population of Britain' wasn't "whipped up" were they...

In fact more people came out to peacefully oppose the small number of thugs that were "whipped up" than the thugs themselves.


Go and drink a nice cup of tea. And avoid the thing that is causing your current hangover. Vitamin C helps.

A slight correction. A look on Google tells me that the Crown Prosecution Service charge according to the name the accused person gives them. Including spelling.

So it is his choice, having given them that spelling. Why would they use another?

Then perhaps you can explain why the mandatory guidelines for possession of guns was ignored by the british Judge two days ago. The fact that the person was a member of a british death squad and shared platforms with british MPs may have something to do with it.
.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0g5wg2w00o

Unbridled support for things that are clearly wrong is not a good look.


I was watching the Mighty Spurs last night and had two pints, hardly hangover territory. You dont like any criticism of britain or the political nature of much of your policing.

The woman was a prick but was treated harshly.

Have you nothing to say about british MPs displaying terrorist symbols or is it OK when they are your terrorists? In the meanwhile the british state is facilitating genocide

Edit

Thats a lie.

Ask a judge instead of ranting online to people who have no interest. And any sentence is according to the law. Criminals also have a right to appeal if they are unhappy with their sentence, and politicians (of any party or part of the U.K.) can ask in parliament for sentences to be increased under the Unduly Lenient Sentences Act.


Cumulative and even 2 pints is bad at your age.


The Hamas supporters? Were there any MPs?

@jon357
Despite you best efforts you can be insufferable in defending things that are clearly wrong or disporponate. It doesnt take much to have you scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I asked you because you are so sure in your posts that the system in britain is perfect.

In my experience Brits have the hardest time integrating in Poland... some become completely unhinged at differences between the two countries and seem to think it's their mission to make Poland more like the UK. Not all by any means but enough that it became a noticeable pattern for me.

It's pretty good, though seeking perfection is essentially absolutism and as Martin Luther always stressed, unattainable.

The system, though not perfect as we on the left know, has evolved over centuries and is very adaptable to circumstances.


We obviously know different people, however I've noticed this more with Americans (I've seen several absolutely lose it in public) and French who at the best of times are a bit "my way or the highway".

The system since Labour came to power is a two tier system. One rule for certain ethnic Minorites, another for British white men and women. I forgive you for not knowing this, as you don't live here.

@Vincent
Hope there is a big smile on your face today. Not the best match but right result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont see two tier policing I see way too many examples of political policing which always undermines faith in institutions.

Yes, of course, and it's about time we won something. Two bad clubs this season, and a scrappy goal, but we'll take it.

It really isn't.

Don't believe that fascistic millionaire Farage and his clowns. He will laugh you into hell.


In fact I've been more in U.K. than PL over the past three years due to family issues.


We probably all do. There are however the democratic means to influence this or change it. Voting Labour (or if you're in NI, the SDLP) and instead of sniping from the stands, actually showing up to party meetings does really make a difference.

In any system, you have to use it well to get what you want. Otherwise you just get angry.