Starmer’s chronicles

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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)

As if you didn't know, it's your opinion, not the Court's, as to whether what she did merited the sentence. Nothing to do with asking you to use your imagination of the bleedin' obvious in another thread.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

As if you didn't know, it's your opinion, not the Court's, as to whether what she did merited the sentence. Nothing to do with asking you to use your imagination of the bleedin' obvious in another thread.

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…

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

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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…

Another dodge. Before her Court appearance, she posted an opinion. You have been asked whether or not what she posted, given her particular circumstances merited the sentence she eventually received.

If that question wasn't clear then, it must be clear now. The main body of opinion on this forum is that she shouldn't even have been brought to Court and that she was the victim of Starmer's edict on punishment for (real) offenders.

Why is it so difficult to get you to answer a simple question?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Another dodge. Before her Court appearance, she posted an opinion. You have been asked whether or not what she posted, given her particular circumstances merited the sentence she eventually received.

If that question wasn't clear then, it must be clear now. The main body of opinion on this forum is that she shouldn't even have been brought to Court and that she was the victim of Starmer's edict on punishment for (real) offenders.

[b]Why is it so difficult to get you to answer a simple question?

No, I wasn’t - I was asked

Do you think Lucy Connolly should be in prison Hugh?

and I answered

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

Also

Why is it so difficult to get you to answer a simple question?

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

What are "the right naval operations", please?

Whatever you want them to be in order to stop any boats from landing in the UK

Not at all, You're fishing for something to latch onto.

That said - as I've hinted (bleedin' obvious really), France is not our friend and Macron needs to be taken on

Use your imagination. "Taking France on" means just that - confrontation and, I hope, an international incident.

The "right naval operations" would be the ones necessary to prevent the migrants from landing in the UK.

Your imagination can picture what I mean

Our actions should ensure that no migrant boats arrive in the UK by all means necessary for that to happen

You're going Hugh on me! Use your imagination!

My suggestions are in the realm of the bleedin' obvious and I don't have to be more specific so that not-pickers can feast.

Your imagination can provide the substance

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Do you think Lucy Connolly should be in prison Hugh?

You skipped past the remarks that Connolly posted and went straight to the process. And you're still doing it despite my asking whether or not what she posted, given her particular circumstances, merited the sentence she eventually received.

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

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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…

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

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)

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

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…

My opinion that if someone pleads guilty to a crime

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

[papa smurf]

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

Well, that 31 months flew past quickly...


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

[Carth]

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

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

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

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

[thenry]

Peaceful?! Those rascal scooters are a lethal weapon

[Carth]

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

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, that 31 months flew past quickly...


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

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.