Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Not answered by Hugh but relevant so I ask again.

Hugh is more than happy to fact check and snipe on here, what is your position on this?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

My position is that she pled guilty to the crime - she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred, and suffered the consequences of that action.

The severity of the offence was increased by the fact that her tweet had been seen by 310,000* people (not 40)…

This sub stack explains the legal reasons why she was imprisoned (without any Telegraph or HopeNotHate slanting either way)

https://emptycity.substack.com/p/exp...h-sentence-for



*Pesky fact-checking again…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

expertly dodged.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

with the customary snipe at the end

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

By all three of you. ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The basic answer to all this is . . even if there is irrefutable proof you were naughty, never EVER admit anything and always plead not guilty. :Yes:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The Bell Hotel has to stop housing asylum seekers by 12 September after Epping Forest District Council argued it was not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel.

https://news.sky.com/story/asylum-se...ction-13414157


judge has denied appeal

well that's chucked a spanner in the works

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

If she had done that, and was then found guilty, her prison sentence would have been longer (she got the sentence reduced by 25%, the standard reduction for a defendant who does not indicate a guilty plea until the case reaches the Crown Court).

So, probably not the best advice… ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Seems to work fine if you're one of the select few don't you think?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Indeed not. The saying 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' comes.to mind.

---------- Post added at 05:10 ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 ----------

How dare you base your opinions on evidence! :D Can't you just pick a side and then play the victim when your side is penalised for law-breaking? :confused:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

No, I don’t…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Well I guess that's your opinion and are entitled to have it ;)

I on the other hand remember many occasions where people above the rank of 'commoner' got away with stuff that would normally (if you're a nobody) result in things like large fines, a short custodial sentence, points (or ban) on the driving license, and even removal from office (sacked in commoner parlance) :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

My opinion that if someone pleads guilty to a crime (unless it is shown by corroborated evidence that the person has been coerced or misled into that plea), is that they deserve the sentence given by the guidelines the judges have to follow; strangely enough, my personal opinions are frequently based on a narrative of facts - you should try it… ;)

Hope this helps…

(also, fairly hypocritical coming from you, who repeatedly refused to give an opinion in another thread, repeatedly stating people should know/use their imagination about what you meant)