[Politics] Protests/rioting in lots of places
- Thread starter Wrong-Direction
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Fair play. FWIW, I arrived in Brighton (well, Hove actually -- but that didn't last that long) in 2002 from Stockwell. I was shocked at how white my new home was. That said, the profile of students that make up c10% of the city has changed in the interim and there are definitely more from diverse parts of the world and heritages, but there's a long way to go before it approaches the profile of other cities and large towns in other parts of the country.
And in terms of the champagne socialist, given that you're intelligent, what's really so wrong with drinking champagne AND being a socialist? I say this as a radical democrat who likes champagne but rarely drinks it because I'd rather drink Burgundy, Riesling, Barolo, claret, Xinomavro or Chianti.
#burgundyswillingradicaldemocrats
Nobby
Well-known member
- Sep 29, 2007
- 3,017
Yes but the prat who has wound everyone up lives in Feckin Sydney
- Oct 17, 2008
- 17,326
What a silly woman. f***ing up her life to protect her moron son. 
sentence is appropriate.
sentence is appropriate.
He really should be bragging more about the multi-culturalism there rather than showing off about how he has private healthcare and sent his kids to private school.Yes but the prat who has wound everyone up lives in Feckin Sydney
Population of Sydney: Country of birth (2021)
| Birthplace[N 1] | Population |
|---|---|
| Australia | 2,970,737 |
| Mainland China | 238,316 |
| India | 187,810 |
| England | 153,052 |
| Vietnam | 93,778 |
| Philippines | 91,339 |
| New Zealand | 85,493 |
| Lebanon | 61,620 |
| Nepal | 59,055 |
| Iraq | 52,604 |
| South Korea | 50,702 |
| Hong Kong SAR | 46,182 |
| South Africa | 39,564 |
| Italy | 38,762 |
| Indonesia | 35,413 |
| Malaysia | 35,002 |
| Fiji | 34,197 |
| Pakistan | 31,025 |
sydney
tinky ****in winky
You're sort of proving my point , Sydney and Melbourne are far more diverse than many English towns.
nicko31
Well-known member
31 mpnths for urging her followers on X to "set fire" to hotels housing asylum seekers.
www.bbc.co.uk
Conservative councillor's wife loses appeal over race hate tweet
Lucy Connolly called for migrant hotels to be "set on fire" on the day of the Southport attacks.
www.bbc.co.uk
NorthstandRacoon
Well-known member
Yet those on her side, will say this is two tier policing and being put inside for freedom of speech, it's shocking! Pleased this scummer is away.31 mpnths for urging her followers on X to "set fire" to hotels housing asylum seekers.
Conservative councillor's wife loses appeal over race hate tweet
Lucy Connolly called for migrant hotels to be "set on fire" on the day of the Southport attacks.
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,994
Those on her side are saying that 31 months is excessive for an offence that lasted 3 hours and was out of character, when she has a 12 year old daughter and has the mitigating effect that the death of small children upsets her unduly because it reminds her of the death of her own small child.
They're also saying that the judge was incorrect to say this offence was worse than the average "incitement to riot" offence and deserved extra punishment for being a particularly aggravated offence with few mitigating circumstances.
They're also saying that she should be entitled to home leave like other women with families on (relatively) short sentences, and wonder why she hasn't had any.
By all means disagree with those people, but don't bother inventing a new category of people to disagree with just for the sake of disagreeing.
So she had kids..........and?
She was inciting other thickies to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers which included.....are you ready for this.....CHILDREN!
Kinda undermines your defence of this nasty racist doesn't it?
- Aug 24, 2020
- 8,725
'Those on her side are saying that 31 months is excessive for an offence that lasted 3 hours'
Are they arguing that 3 hours was too long or too short?
What is the optimum length of time the offence should have taken to commit, for them to agree that 31 months was about right?
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 19,994
I like the idea that it matters how long an offence takes.
Efficient murderers get less time than inefficient ones. Get less time if you use a gun.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 8,725
That's the calibre of the people who are on her side. Boom, boom.
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,994
If you'd taken the trouble to read what I put, you would have seen that I was very careful not to defend her. The question is not whether she was guilty, but whether the sentence was excessive.
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,994
There is a school of thought that if you post something on TwitterX and change your mind 3 hours later and delete it, it is less of a crime than if you post it again and again and stand by it for ever. (It's well established in libel cases that if you delete a libellous statement and apologise for it, it is considered less culpable than if you repeat the statement and stand by it.)
Obviously there is also a school of thought that one single racist tweet a la Lineker or Connelly puts you in the same class as Tommy Robinson for evermore.
- Aug 8, 2005
- 27,772
My general view on sentencing is whether the cost to the tax payer is worth it and whether it acts as a suitable preventative measure to deter others from acting in the same way.
I think most people in society would agree that they don't want those that have committed acts of violence or physical harm to others walking our streets until they are safe to do so. Circumstances of the crime get taken into account but if you've murdered someone or committed unspeakable acts against people you shouldn't be allowed out until those best able to judge believe you won't do it again. Given the limited spaces in our prisons I'd rather they focused on keeping those people behind closed doors than someone who said something stupid and ignorant on social media.
At the time the sentence made sense. She and a handful of others were used as an example and that ticks the deter box for others. Should that sentence now be reduced? Yes, I'd say so because it's served it's purpose. People are more aware of what they say on social media as a result, and she has undoubtedly learnt her lesson. She could be released under the condition she cannot use social media again, attend any rallies or whatever, but it doesn't feel like a good use of taxpayers money to keep her in prison to me.
I think most people in society would agree that they don't want those that have committed acts of violence or physical harm to others walking our streets until they are safe to do so. Circumstances of the crime get taken into account but if you've murdered someone or committed unspeakable acts against people you shouldn't be allowed out until those best able to judge believe you won't do it again. Given the limited spaces in our prisons I'd rather they focused on keeping those people behind closed doors than someone who said something stupid and ignorant on social media.
At the time the sentence made sense. She and a handful of others were used as an example and that ticks the deter box for others. Should that sentence now be reduced? Yes, I'd say so because it's served it's purpose. People are more aware of what they say on social media as a result, and she has undoubtedly learnt her lesson. She could be released under the condition she cannot use social media again, attend any rallies or whatever, but it doesn't feel like a good use of taxpayers money to keep her in prison to me.
Last edited:
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 10,061
But you're putting forward the arguments of those who are defending her. And i'm going to go out on a limb and guess these are exactly the same people who go on about two tier justice and have strong sympathies to the rioters
Nobody has ever questioned whether she is guilty or not. She's been found guilty in court and nobody on here is remotely surprised by this given her offence was there for all to see. She can have no complaints with the length of the sentence given what she's done.
I’ve no issues with this sentence, over that weekend innocent folk in a hotel or two including staff feared for their lives. A thin blue line just about prevented mass murder. She was an agent provocateur.
My one wish is that similar online actions are dealt with similarly. Whatever the subject matter.
My one wish is that similar online actions are dealt with similarly. Whatever the subject matter.
But I did. And I read this:
"......and has the mitigating effect that the death of small children upsets her unduly........"
So if the death of small children upset her (as I'm sure it upset everybody) and should be taken into account in mitigating her sentence, why would she have been inciting others to take actions which could have resulted in the death of err small children?
There is no mitigation. For once I can heartily applaud the judicial system. Let this be a warning to other racists looking to stir up racial hatred.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 8,725
If she has a 12 year old daughter, and the death of small children upsets her unduly (?), then the judge is correct to say that the offence was worse than the average 'incitement to riot'. Even in spite of these claimed mitigating circumstances, she committed the offence for 3 hours.