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)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Pretty sure the first two words I posted clarified the situation - I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

No, I wasn’t - I was asked

Do you think Lucy Connolly should be in prison Hugh?

and I answered

Also

Oh, the irony from some who posted, in response to

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Thats enough of this childish argument, get back to the actual topic.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

:tu:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Seeing what happened to those that did plead “not guilty”, it probably is good advice.

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 19:00 ----------

Doesn’t help. Not an opinion.

But not to worry you’re not obligated to provide one.

But just say you don’t want to give an opinion rather than try to side step it.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------

That’s an answer to a question that wasn’t asked.

I asked whether you think she specifically should be jail for 2.5 years for her “offence”

The answer to that specific question is yes or no.

---------- Post added at 19:07 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

Sorry just going through the thread before I got to this point.

---------- Post added at 19:07 ---------- Previous post was at 19:07 ----------

Of course. Leave it here then, I already have all the answers I need. It wasn’t a surprise. Thanks

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Lucy Connolly to go free today after jailing over tweet branded 'national scandal'


Connolly, whose husband Raymond Connolly serves as a Conservative councillor, will walk free on Thursday after receiving a 31-month custodial sentence last year. After she wrote a post on the day three children were murdered by Axel Rudakubana in Southport.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/20...tional-scandal

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Well, that 31 months flew past quickly...


(remanded 12th August 2024, sentenced 17th October 2024)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Released early, probably to make room for all those about to be arrested and jailed for using a VPN :rofl:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

got to make room for all those pensioners peacefully holding a piece of cardboard

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Peaceful?! Those rascal scooters are a lethal weapon

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Us pensioners are a nasty bunch, going shopping in the high street with our zimmer frames and walking sticks, getting in the way of cyclists and single mothers with their 5 screaming kids, trying to pay cash for a bottle of milk and small loaf.
They even closed Libraries and Post Offices to prevent us having mass gatherings :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

released on licence, same as anyone else pleading guilty, after serving 40% of her sentence. Obviously not considered a dangerous.

Shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

tbf, it’s probably just you… ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

sign removed from road after constant honking
The dual carriageway became "the loudest in Britain" after motorists joined a chorus of dissent against the Prime Minister's migration policies.

Sir kier seems popular :)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...ageway-honking

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

A miracle if he's still PM, by this time next year.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

but he'll still be a .......

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

This reminds me of this https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...ghlight=Cherry

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I don't know. She was inciting people to commit a murderous act of burning down a building full of migrants. Do you not consider that serious enough to warrant a jail sentence?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Who was she inciting exactly?

I refer you to a previous post, to you.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1695

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

She pleaded guilty to the offence of distributing material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred.

I think the judge summed it up quite well.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...lysentence.pdf

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

There's that vague word 'inciting' again.

Up there near the top of the list of deliberately anomalous and obfuscating words and phrases such as:

Potentially
Up To
As Little As
May Possibly
Could Eventually

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

No - she appealed under those grounds, and lost…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

She was badly advised.

She appealed, in front of a judge not a jury.

Other similar cases indicate, in front a jury of people that believe hurty words are not something to be jailed for, and not a politicised judge.

She would have got off. I wouldn't have found her guilty over a tweet she deleted written in a fit of emotion, a woman that had experienced losing her own child, after 3 children brutely stabbed to death and several more injured.

Would you have found her guilty? Don't worry you don't have to answer and side step another question.

We're going over old ground anyway.

But to believe, there were several people sitting looking at twitter, who read that tweet and then thought, "She has spoken, she has given me a direct order, I must go and make a few molotov's"

laughable and would remove any agency from such individual.

Anyway, like I say, we've done this, we know where we all stand and it's the lovely lefties that seem to be all "authoritarian"...funny that.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

She was inciting violent racists in our society. Do you expect me to name them?

Would you take a different view if she was egging the crowd to do the same thing in the street?

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:17 ----------

‘Hurty words’ are one thing. Her post went well beyond that.

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:20 ----------

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...glish/inciting

The meaning is very clear.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It would help yes.

If I was to send out a tweet that said, I think the UK should nuke Pakistan. Am I inciting violence and just becuase i send out that tweet do you think a general somewhere will think, my god yes...we should nuke Pakistan, I'll get right on it.

Here you make a great point. If she was on the street in front of a crowd with a loudspeaker, whipping them up and saying lets go burn down a hotel.

Yes, that is different, (which is actually not too different from what Ricky Jones did, and he was cleared by a jury)


How so?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It would depend on the evidence and arguments, and the explanations given by both barristers (and the Judge) of the laws she was alleged to have broken - unlike you,

I wouldn’t have made my mind up before I had heard any of that; I would have tried to have made an informed judgement based on the information I had heard, and then discussed with the rest of the Jury…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It depends on the snowflakes in the court.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Do you mean the jury?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

And therein is the issue here, none of us on here were jurors because she pleaded guilty. Now, personally, if she had pleaded not guilty and it had gone to a full trial, from what I know (and admittedly if I had been a juror and heard the full case, I may well have learned something more, which may have changed my opinion), they I probably would have voted to acquit.

Why, because what she said was appalling, stupidly unwise, but do I think that based on it anyone would have started making petrol bombs? No! So at best she is guilty of being an idiot, which is not a criminal offence (yet).

But, should she be in prison, absolutely yes, for the simple fact that she pleaded guilty, she admitted that what she had done was exactly what she was accused of and hence the Court had little option but to follow the sentencing guidelines. We can all argue that she was badly advised and should have stuck it out, but she didn’t, it is what it is.

None of us are perfect, people say stupid things (see the Robin Hood airport bomb threat), the vast, vast, vast majority of us are rational people, we can read that and just think ‘idiot’ and move on.

As mentioned in a post above, I think there is a massive difference between some random post on Facebook, and standing at a street corner with a megaphone, telling everyone that ‘the illegal immigrants being housed at your expense at luxury accommodation at 123 Humpty Dumpty Road are all planning on raping your daughters so here’s a stock of petrol bombs, arm yourselves and we march now!!!’

Now that’s incitement!

Now, do I think that some asylum seekers have been guilty of sexual assault against young girls? Absolutely yes they have! But then again it was not too long ago when a former school caretaker was convicted for multiple attacks. Do we castigate all school caretakers?

Of course not! But, but for those asylum seekers who have been convicted of a crime, obviously they are not too appreciative of us granting them asylum so just return them to where they originally came from, which I know this isn’t always easy to ascertain.

So how about this as a plan, any asylum seeker who has been granted asylum here but then has abused this by committing and convicted of a (serious) crime is bundled onto an RAF plane, fitted with an automatically opened parachute and then chucked out of the plane over southern Afghanistan?

Which does sound horribly extreme but ideally the threat of it actually being done might well act as a deterrent!

I want to live in a society that welcomes genuine asylum seekers, people who are fleeing repressing regimes, I don’t care about your religion, sexual orientation, whatever, all I ask is that you are prepared to integrate, don’t expect us to change everything to simply accommodate you, but, maybe, over time, we do incorporate some part of your culture into ours and it becomes part of ours. Because that’s how we all evolve and improve and move on!

This post is far too long, isn’t it? And may have wondered off topic, so my apologies to the mods and I quite understand it you see fit to delete it on those grounds.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I disagree, insofar that it was her first ever offence, she is non-violent, she is not a danger to the community, and there were mitigating mental health issues.

A community sentence and tag would have been more than sufficient.

She was made an example of under the tacit direction of the prime minister and political agitating judge.

That is an excellent point. I would love to know what the sentencing guidelines are for this.

More importantly what the minimum sentencing guidelines are, which is what she should have got.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Which is what she got…

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...y-Connolly.pdf

Paragraphs 24, 25, and first two sentences of para 26.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Thank you.

Which is worrying and baffling, that only a custodial sentence is available for this offence?

You’d agree that is a bit strange ?

Considering that there are examples of violent cases that don’t result in a custodial sentence.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Why do you say this kind of stuff when you know it's not true. You're a better man this.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The problem is, I think there is some truth to it.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

it stinks of interference

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

imo, for a jury, paragraphs 20 and 21 may have provided counter-balance to those paragraphs…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...7&d=1756367760

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Actually no it wasn’t.

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/gui...l-orientation/

For culpability a lenient judge would gone for “Lesser Culpability”

What she did was reckless, no doubt.

And for Harm

What she said was not direct, it was an open statement “for all I care”, and she didn’t broadcast it widely others did that.

It was well within the Judges gift to sentence her to a community order. IMO the judge was swayed by Starmer’s rhetoric and gave an overly harsh sentence to make an example of her.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

You are making assumptions regarding "offence category" and "harm" - this explains why the Judge acted the way he did…

https://barristerblogger.com/2025/05...inst-sentence/

https://i0.wp.com/barristerblogger.c...aled.png?ssl=1

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1756386171

https://i0.wp.com/barristerblogger.c...aled.png?ssl=1

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1756386171

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Did they ask her?

Anyway, I think we’ve done this to death now.

It may be that t’s were crossed and i’s dotted and all the legal people did everything right. Which just leaves me to say, in that case, the law is an ass.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Very very true

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I think that's a far more logical conclusion to come to than your initial suggestion that Starmer had somehow shaped the sentence. :tu:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Andrew finally admits that Starmer has absolutely zero influence anywhere :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Fortunately, our judiciary is not run in the political way that some countries' set-ups are. It's a Starmer-free zone. ;)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The rule for British PMs is you make your money when you're not in the role. So likely 2029 at this rate.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Yes - you do.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 16:02 ----------

The rule is one thing. Suspicion is another.

Even if the suspicion is unfounded, they can make laws that have the same effect. Some very bad laws have been passed under Starmer, particularly where free speech is concerned.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I’m not the one posting conspiracy theories…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Meanwhile, a likely sigh of relief from the government as it overturns the injunction to remove asylum seekers from the Epping hotel.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...fac5ecf5&ei=12

---------- Post added at 16:32 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------

I think you're either getting confused with Reform and its refusal to work with the local press in Nottingham or with the Conservatives' ban on discussing the data breach of Afghanistan nationals who had worked for the UK.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Yes - it was always going to win that appeal. The Council did not process within the statutory period the hotel owner's application for change of use. That needed to be given due weight at the original injunction hearing. Also, the government had a clear interest at being a party to the case.

Massive screw-up by the Epping Council. They should withdraw their application because otherwise they will be hit for significant costs at the Epping public's expense.


---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:40 ----------

What are you on about? The government is the one passing laws and free speech in the UK is under serious threat.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cger45p0lv0o

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The Government - the Labour Government - now seem to have free reign on filling hotels with migrants - at our expense.

That's probably another few million voting for Reform then :D

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Most of them were passed by the Tories weren't they? Which ones were Labour? (Obviously Labour are bad for not removing them, but i wish the Tories were suddenly concerned for privacy and free speech were as concerned when they were in office).

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

You said

I gave you another example of that…

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Well, no it isn’t and no you didn’t.

Not wishing to speak to one individual or organisation is not imposing on anyone’s right to free speech.

It’s like blocking someone on Twitter, not wanting to listen to them does not stop them saying it.

The state broadcaster, or any publication, does not have any “right” that they “must” be spoken to…………that in and of itself is a pretty authoritarian stance to take if you think that.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

The Sun newspaper banned from Labour Party conference
MP calls for Labour leader to explain Sun article to Hillsborough families
And the difference is...........?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Four years, Bob.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ----------

I'd like to know this too! Did we miss something when our backs were turned?

I don't think Starmer's government was that focused on UK matters, due to the distractions of Trump's tariffs and Ukraine. But that changed after the post-Southport riots.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Irrelevant. The lack of principle still stands.
Last year
This month
Last month

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

What a complete moron.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

LinkNothing political about that?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I think you'll find that Seph and many others agree the judge's decision was legally correct. By law, the government has to house them.
And being chair of a think tank over 35 years ago does not indicate your current political leanings nor is it comparable to being appointed by the President.

---------- Post added at 00:09 ---------- Previous post was at 00:04 ----------

Pure whataboutery. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's worse in Nottingham for if the local press don't get access to council information, no one else is going to show much interest. Whereas there will be plenty of other media scrutiny at the Labour Party Conference.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Can we not just give them tents in a field . . . or a shoreline?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

It's called pure hypocrisy.



Press releases are going to happen, but not sent to those publications. Press releases are available to the general public, so they're available anyway.
Nottingham Council press releases.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

If you're banning people speaking to the press, that's an attack on free speech.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Only selected press. Other media outlets are available. The press releases are available to all.
Link

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Not “the press” just certain people they don’t want to speak to.

You can’t compel somebody to speak to somebody they don’t want to speak to. They have no right to be spoken too.

That has no bearing on “free speech”.

You don’t understand free speech if you’re going down this route.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Reform has changed its policy. Its previously policy which my posts referenced had a bearing on free speech. Hopefully, you get and can agree with this.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Deputy PM Angela Rayner admits she did not pay enough stamp duty on second home


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/crm4mxrg40pt


caught with nose in the trough?


Angela Rayner has admitted she did not pay the right amount of stamp duty on the purchase of her second home and has referred herself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards.

Speaking to Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the deputy prime minister became tearful as she claimed she received incorrect tax advice and spoke to her family about "packing it all in".


https://news.sky.com/story/angela-ra...gning-13424180

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

I'm suspicious that the admission is purely to avoid a deeper investigation of everything.
Is this rule that she's broken?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Lammy went fishing while Rayner bit the hand that feeds her...

All we need now is for Diane Abbotts wig to fly off.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

there should be a full HMRC investigation into all her tax affairs

she should resign by the end of the day

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Deputy PM Angela Rayner eventually (after many denials) admits she didn't pay enough stamp duty on second home.

Starmer gives her a cuddle and says he's proud of her.

Bonfire night can't come soon enough

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Including those before she became an MP. Far to many contradictions Eg Lying about her residence address on birth certificates for "sentimental reasons".

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

But but labour are the party of honest Jon's, it all the fault of members of the legal profession, giving her incorrect advice. Notice members of the cabinet can do no wrong and sir keir is proud of her. That says it all:erm:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

it's taken her long enough to come clean, is she suing the lawyers for bad advice?

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

That would open a can of worms regarding all the 'expert' advice that Governments have acted upon over the last 20 (or more) years.

Eggs
Milk
Diesel cars
Covid

:rofl:

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

my expert advice on legal matters is "don't get caught";)

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Some of Rayner's previous tweets:

She reckons she considered quitting, that decision should be made for her by Starmer.

Labour....it's hilarious, banging on about 14years this and 22billion black hole that.

In 14 months they've become the most hated government in memory, increased the black hole to 50 billion, sent the gilts into a spiral Liz Truss could only dream about and scandal after scandal.

All the while, Nigel just sits and waits stroking his white Persian pussy cat.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

. . . and if you are caught, always apologise profusely whilst vehemently denying you actually did it.

Re: Starmer’s chronicles
 

Not yet… ;)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...proval-rating/

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1756906697