Starmer’s chronicles

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Mrs Connolly’s solicitor advocate accepted that she had “intended to incite serious violence.” That gave the judge no option but to place her offence in Category A for culpability.

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.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Which just leaves me to say, in that case, the law is an ass.

Very very true

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Very very true

So is Starmer. He (through Reeves) and Miliband are dismantling our economy.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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

Andrew finally admits that Starmer has absolutely zero influence anywhere

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

Andrew finally admits that Starmer has absolutely zero influence anywhere

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

[Sephiroth]

I wonder if it is Starmer free. He is the lawyers’ lawyer and certainly knows a good few of them. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was involved in stuff behind the scenes.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I wonder if it is Starmer free. He is the lawyers’ lawyer and certainly knows a good few of them. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was involved in stuff behind the scenes.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I wonder if it is Starmer free. He is the lawyers’ lawyer and certainly knows a good few of them. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was involved in stuff behind the scenes.

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

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes - you do.

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

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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

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.

I’m not the one posting conspiracy theories…

[1andrew1]

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Some very bad laws have been passed under Starmer, particularly where free speech is concerned.

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

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

The Reform UK leader of Nottinghamshire County Council has banned a local newspaper from speaking to him or any of his councillors "with immediate effect".

Mick Barton has banned the Nottingham Post and its online arm Nottinghamshire Live over what the BBC understands was a disagreement about a story it ran on local government reorganisation.


Also included in the ban are BBC-funded journalists who work at the publication as part of the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

[Carth]

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